2nd Rebuttal of Kirsten Han's blog

Continuing from the previous article, Ms Han's main thrust of her article is about separating the State from PAP.

Her reasons for this is the PAP has framed itself as a perpetual thus making the separation difficult.

She reinforced this belief by asserting that the PAP by giving out GST vouchers and Estate Upgrading done for citizens that are meant to make citizens grateful to the party. Her proof is : constituencies under oppositions were shunted to the back of the queue.

Her perspective clearly is not what she tried to present herself in the article..."fair". Her's is a fixated view of "bad government, good oppositions". All good done by government is suspicious with ulterior motives, and oppositions suffer as a result of government doing good.

GST vouchers are given out to all citizens regardless whether you vote the PAP or oppositions.

As with Estate Upgrading, let us take her so call proof of putting opposition constituencies being shunted to the back. Did she follow up with as to why she thinks this should not be? No she did not. I would rather believe she cannot.

Writers like Kirsten Han often creates impressions, misleading impressions that government has no answers to a question by repeating the same question over and over, and over at different places. The refusal to accept answers does not equal to not having answers, and the refusal to truth does not means truth does not exist.

Firstly it is not true that only opposition constituencies are being shunted to the back of the queue. Most PAP constituencies do not get to enjoy priorities to these programmes as well. If there were 5 opposition constituencies that did not get Estate Upgrading, 50 more PAP constituencies were also left out due to limited time and resources.

For fair comparison by putting those 50 PAP constituencies who did not get upgrading together with the 5 from opposition who also did not get upgrading, and if there is a little extra resources plus some new provisions that can be given away to one or two of these, who should these go to?

To the opposition constituencies by virtue that most people there dislike what the government is doing for them as shown by way of votes or to PAP constituencies?

It is tough, extremely difficult decisions to make. They are all citizens of Singapore, and as Ms Hans said, these are also tax payers' money. One cannot show unfair preferences neither can one show unfair sympathy.

Let's put it to the polls during elections. You choose.

But of course in recent times, the upgrading issue is no longer a thorn in the flesh for both PAP and oppositions. More resources have been allocated and opposition constituencies do see their queue numbers arrived.

Ms Han is a little backdated with this, but she did try very hard to present the sad sad story that never is and never shall be.
https://www.facebook.com/Anthony-Kan-Page-620606971399453/timeline/

Rebuttal to Kirsten Han's blog

Kirsten Han joining GE talks, but a bit out of tune.

This is her starter :
<<The upcoming general election is not about electing opposition voices into Parliament. Or so the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) would like you to believe. No, the upcoming general election is actually about electing the next generation of PAP leaders to govern the country.

That this completely misrepresents the point of parliamentary elections should be clear. But what is more troubling for Singapore is the way in which the PAP is treated as a fixed point in the country’s political landscape, a certainty that voters are expected to facilitate (if they know what’s good for them).>>

By her disagreement with what PAP says, we understand her that this coming election is really about electing opposition voices into Parliament.

She is more pointed in another paragraph way below. So our understanding of her assertion that GE is about electing opposition into Parliament is not very far from the truth. This is what she said subsequently :

<<This might be acceptable for some time, as it appears to have been to the electorate for over 50 years. But the power imbalance leaves us all in a vulnerable position, where we just have to cross our fingers and hope that those in power continue to make good decisions and share the values that ordinary people would like to see in our society.>>

Never in the history of democracy is General Elections about electing oppositions into Parliament. By the way the reason why there is such a thing call "Opposition" is because of "Failure".

General Elections will always be about forming government. You go to the polls because of the expiry date of the government. These are the absolute defines of General Elections. All else are interpretations thereof.

So why is having "Oppositions" a result of failure? The basic failure occurs when contesting parties fail to win over all citizens to its side by means of votes.

In reality getting all people to agree in all things is never a possibility. Not even two persons can agree on all things. Where in democratic competition, political parties must foremost endeavour to satisfy all people, not some people. Hence all political parties must put forth itself the capacity and ability to run a government, and not cutting itself to a smaller role of catering to special interest.

This is idealistic thinking, as idealistic as in the proposition that all parliaments must have opposition parties.

There is a place for opposition parties to cut themselves small, representing special interest, not because it is the absolute political model, but the system is open enough to accommodate, to be inclusive even if this is not the ideal nor the best democratic competition we can have.
https://www.facebook.com/Anthony-Kan-Page-620606971399453/timeline/

Question About Grassroots Organizations' Accounts

It is with regrets that I had paid so little attention to accounting matters during my days of involving in Grassroots Organizations. Primarily I hate numbers. I prefer people, residents than mind boggling numbers.

But still I was able to put a stop to a project that could not give me a reasonable assurance of the project's self-sustainability, despite a majority support from the committee. Without elaborating, I have incurred a lot of wrath and even hate. The projects has a price tag beyond 300K and architect's sketches were produce for discussion.

Now that parliament is discussing about PA and GRO accounting procedures, it brought back some memories.

In those committees that I have sat in, there is a post of Treasurer, and Asst Treasurer, and that of an Auditor. I must say the Auditor was always questioning the Treasurer, and that too fed to my laziness about paying attention to the boring accounts reporting at every meeting.

Let me just put it this way, there is no absolute altruism in GRO involvement. There is bound to be personal interest somehow, where some are in hoping to form or be in "old boys club" while others thinks this kind of networking is cheaper than country clubs.

For me, I loved to play and have been playing games all my life. Chide me for treating community service as a game if you may, but you'll be a fool to think that a game cannot be serious, passionate, and even sacrificial. If I change the word from game to sports, it may sound more palatable to you.

Though we all have our unique interest in participating in Grassroots activities, not one can gain or profit directly from these organizations unless you blatantly cheats without others knowing. Every member is a check, and have their own individual reputation and dignity to protect. The system has not gap for pilfering.

Moving with times, I believe it is time to change. I do not believe there is a question of integrity, but the problem or issue lies with culture. The corporate culture of Grassroots Organizations needs to keep abreast with time and expectation.

Take PA accounting vs GRO accounting for example. My understanding may be vague, or even inaccurate. But it looks to me like this.....

Peoples' Association's consolidated account is one of the many handbags (no intention to be sexist) that links with the government vault. Money going into and coming out of these handbags are restricted by rules and subject to public accountability.

But within that handbag are compartments, even different wallets to manage internal use of money. A friend particularly during Lunar New Year uses different wallets inside her handbag to ensure that she will give the right amount of "hong bao" to differentiate the closeness of relations. Her adult son once gave a $2000/- "hong bao" which was intended for a client's kid to someone else.

GROs are special class of identities where, with the assistance from PA runs on grants and contributions from running activities and events. Most of the time revenues generated from community activities and events are insufficient and has to be compensated with grants to cover the expenses.

While having even to subject internal movements of "own-money" to external audit and scrutiny will increase spending by a lot, I think the money is going to be well spent even just to allay suspicion.

This will most probably increase workloads of accounting firms which may already be facing manpower crunch, but when there is no way out, then we probably has to admit more foreigners to help do the job so that transparency and accountability can be held high.

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

Why Does The Original Team At Workers Party Chose To Remain In Aljunied GRC

If ever there is any reason closer to the truth as to why the Workers Party team in Aljunied GRC and Punggol East remains intact is not exactly that they took PAP seriously as Goh Chok Tong has said. The WP has always taken PAP seriously, not just Aljunied GRC this time round. GCT is not exactly wrong either.

You would have noticed I had never included Hougang in the equation all along, and I guessed this is fully understood by all.

To add to that, it would become controversial if Low Thia Khiang suddenly decides to take back Hougang from Png Eng Huat. What will that signals? No it is suicide to do that.

Back to Aljunied and Punggol, and these are one unofficially.

First reason closer to the truth for the Aljunied Punggol WP team to remain intact is the two-heads factor. Sylvia Lim & Low Thia Khiang. Remember Sylvia Lim did not win any elections until Low abandoned his Hougang seat and brought Slyvia Lim up to be full MP in 2011. Since then, Sylvia Lim becomes the de facto boss and public face of the WP. She has created much opportunities for media coverage as also Chairman of AHPETC.

From cleaning of ceilings, penalizing exorbitantly of stall holders, operating fairs without permits to the inability of keeping financial records proper and to date.

We are not sure if there is any power tussle issues between the two heads of Singapore's leading opposition party, so we cannot rule that out totally, and we have to factor in this to figure out what is happening.

First it was Low who alone and unanimously declared he will remain without mentioning the others. It would be fine if the rest can wait till a better time nearer to nomination or even at nomination. It is common and normal to keep one's card close to the chest.

Then not long after, Sylvia Lim made the announcement that sounded more official than that of Low Thia Khiang. It makes people puzzled.

Let's consider if Low leads a team in Aljunied and Sylvia Lim leads another in any other GRC. What happens thereafter?

If both wins, the status of Sylvia Lim will be further elevated as against Low, and no longer needs to bear the stigma of it was Low's coat tail that parachuted her into parliament. This adds to further frictions when it comes to differences in ideas and decision making.

If Low wins and Sylvia Lim crashed out and lost with Low keeping Aljunied, Low will be able to stabilize the internal dynamics at play within the party. Don't forget that throughout the last parliament term, several of Low's original team left the Workers Party on not so amicable circumstances.

Thereafter with Sylvia Lim no longer an elected MP, Low can reorganized the town council and set the directions without having to consider Sylvia Lim's consent.

Comparing the chances of winning between Aljunied and another GRC, the chances of a win for Aljunied is a possibility and an almost firm lost for any other GRC. Let me explain later.

Therefore, using Sylvia LIm's favourite words this season, on assessment it is prudent for her and her followers to stick with Low Thia Khiang in Aljunied. Considering the pros and cons, even if there is a total crash out for the WP, the positions between the two heads of WP will have little change.

Now why is there an almost firm lost for the WP should Slyvia Lim goes to another GRC? This is also one of Sylvia Lim's detailed assessment.

All of Singapore knows that the Aljunied GRC is having "challenges", a word used by Sylvia Lim to describe their problems with AHPETC's financial management. Whether they are good at the end of the day or they will come out stink, no other GRC would want such issues happen inside their courtyard. This is not about First World Parliament anymore.

Given a sure lose wherever Sylvia Lim goes, she has to decide to cuddle with Low in Aljunied to strengthen their chances. Unfortunately looking at the circumstances, she may be the nemesis for Workers Party this time round.
https://www.facebook.com/Anthony-Kan-Page-620606971399453/timeline/

National solidarity Party Leader's Misconception About Roles & Responsibilities of a Member of Parliament

Hazel Poa says the primary job of Member of Parliament is to make laws, not managing town. She has put a definition to the role of an MP while my friend Patrick Liew has put 4Cs to the qualities of an MP. Commitment, Character, Competence, Compassion.

What Ms Poa said was partly right, but only a very very small part of it. The privileges that comes with being a Member of Parliament is indeed making laws among others.

The fundamental duties and responsibilities of an MP lies with serving the constituents that voted you into the parliament. Singapore is too small to have municipal governments that has to even run its own economy, making sure its constituents gets their daily meal on the table.

Let me put the argument this way to allay those who tells me that Parliament is the place to make laws and MPs do the making. Do we not see MPs not making laws in parliament? You can have your mouth shut throughout the whole Parliament term and no one can sack you for that. Is that enough to explain why making laws is not fundamental duty of an MP?

If Ms Poa being the de facto leader of a leading opposition party can have such shallow understanding of the role and responsibilities of an MP, how can we put all the 4Cs onto our talent search. It is extremely difficult for the PAP and it is even more difficult for opposition parties.

Much of the MPs job are practically learned on-the-job. Even in the most basic function of that role, petition writing, MPs differ in not just styles, but level of skills that involves being attentive, inquisitive, and analytic before a convincing letter can be written. Additional knowledge and information would power it further, and MPs have got to go out and acquire these to make them better MPs.

Again Ms Pao is wrong in assuming that managing town councils is really to get down to sweep corridors. Managing towns is the primary level of managing country. If municipal matter is not your interest, Then I really do not see you having an interest in facilities and infrastructures. If you don't understand why a lift needs to be maintained at regular intervals, then I do not see how you can understand the complex operations of a MRT system, let alone the entire transport road map of Singapore.

Only when you learn to share joys and pains of the residents, what makes them happy and what makes them sad, then you earn your rights to that privilege of going into parliament and argue your heart out for your residents, and for all Singaporeans, to ad to their joy and happiness and reduce those pains and sadness.

Yes we do have oppositions in Singapore's parliament, but sadly the law making responsibilities had thus far largely undertaken by the PAP MPs. Parliament was somewhat treated as an information vault where they ask for information to bolster their opposition agenda instead of national affairs.

Are we better off today with more oppositions in Parliament? My honest estimate is NO. It has stifled much of progress as a nation. Is checks and balances necessary? YES. Who qualifies to do the checking?

Coming back to the picture uploaded by Mr Wong Kan Seng. I put a caption to that :

"The smiles on the face and the looks in the eyes says it all. You are much loved by these whose parents were just like them, only kids when you began as their Member of Parliament.

You have never let time flies without touching the hearts of generation of your constituents."

The mark of a good MP is written on the face of his/her residents, and on the surroundings of his constituency.
https://www.facebook.com/Anthony-Kan-Page-620606971399453/timeline/

Teo Chee Hian Wants To Take Back Aljunied GRC

If Sylvia Lim from Workers Party can do a smokescreen, so can Teo Chee Hian from the PAP.

No, I'm just kidding. The PAP has yet to learn how to create fogginess, and even if they do the WP has by now perfected that many miles ahead.

What DPM Teo just said is like throwing a glass of clear water. You don't get smoke by throwing clear water can you? It is no secret that the PAP intends to take back Aljunied GRC and Punggol East and that is not impossible.

The PAP owes a duty to those who voted them to win back Aljunied GRC and Punggol East. The PAP who had served there had accumulated on behalf of residents monies in the sinking fund as well as operational surpluses.

It is still foggy as to the financial status of the town council ever since it was handed over to the Workers Party. A bank account consisting of monies belonging to residents of the constituencies accounting for sinking fund and operational surpluses are reportedly not accounted for according to statutory requirements.

I do not think that by now we should be talking about requiring the Workers Party to come clean on its accounts and make them up to date for public scrutiny.

I believe that every political party must have its town council accounts readily available for public scrutiny by Election Day. Election Day is the dividing line as to whether the town council remains with the incumbent or it will be taken over by another party.

A town council's performance that includes its financial status are a significant part of what voters look for in deciding who to vote for in the election.

By not having its accounts ready for public scrutiny is somewhat akin to hijacking the democratic process of the General Election. You leave voters "No Choice" to vote one party in order to have it finish its unfinished jobs, or to vote one party out to allow another party to pick up the pieces. Either way, voters have no "willing choice".

At least if the accounts are available for public scrutiny, and it is in the deficit, it allows voters to make a willing and intelligent choice of voting one party even if it runs the town council into deficit. This is democracy.

I know some people will ask me what about Lehman Brothers? The brothers are assuredly resting peacefully, and if you are referring to Teo Ho Pin's losses in investable funds, then listen.

I am no fan of Teo Ho Pin's investment strategy nor decisions. But that won't make me in agreement with those who argues that losses in investable funds are the same as sinking funds and operational funds not properly accounted for..

I would have accord the Workers Party same response and treatment if it is only about investable funds in question. I may even side with it if its investment strategy is superior to that of Teo Ho Ping.

But it is not the same with operational funds. These monies are for paying contractors so that they can pay their workers salaries, and pay for materials they use.

Sinking funds are savings put aside for major repairs and replacements, and they are untouchable until called for.

The losses made by Teo Ho Pin's town council are all accounted for, every dollar. But to date, even the Chief Justice is asking if there is a possibility of insolvency pointing to AHPETC's financial accounts.

So I think for now, the demand by Aljunied GRC and Punggol voters is for the Workers Party to quickly present its latest up to date financial statements so that a fair democratic process can take place without running questionable..
https://www.facebook.com/Anthony-Kan-Page-620606971399453/timeline/

The Lui Tuck Yew Effect On Coming General Elections

Much of our discussions these two days focused on Lui Tuck Yew's decision not to participate in the coming GE.

His decision announced publicly had drawn much support and understanding from people who once jeered him. People realized they have wronged him and feelings of remorse did dig deep into Singaporeans' conscience. How can you fault such a man as Lui Tuck Yew?

More heart melting happened when they discovered that he was once living in a two-room rented flat.

Not discussed at all is his role as MP and Grassroots Advisor.

You can say "tuck you" to him on screen and he is tough enough to take it lightly, but when unkind words come off face to face during community visits in the presence of public, it is bitterly harder to swallow but you just have to swallow.

Thanks to trolls and Opposition MPs who had preferred to remain silent to the supporters, choosing to enjoy fruits dropping from overhanging branches across the wall.

It is not the government's job to make things easy for oppositions, therefore why is it the oppositions' job to shield an innocent minister from abuse? Then please don't shed crocodile tears.

The pressure on the man is not simply his ability to hold up the Transport Ministry, he is better than that. But because he also has to win elections that makes it all the more difficult given the mounting odds. He will forever be a subject of abuse performing the MP role.

What's the point? Collective responsibility among cabinet colleagues don't bring together collective votes. Each has to earn his/her own, non transferable.

Singaporeans were willing to sacrifice George Yeo, a man gifted with global vision for some dubious promises of First World Parliament that has yet to be figured out what that really mean?

Losing Lui Tuck Yew, a down to earth, serious and dedicated man to join the chorus of unsound protests of mechanical wear and tear.

When will we wise up? Can we safely call ourselves a politically matured society when we cannot tell the difference between needs and wants?

VOTE WISELY.

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

TOC Picking On Chee Hong Tat

This was the title The Online Citizen site used for an article making reference to PAP candidate Chee Hong Tat.

<“Stupid” to advocate the learning of dialects: PAP’s new candidate once said>

A previous article of the same, I took issue with the crafting of this title that later discovered was my oversight and mistake. I was corrected by mod and I took down the post. A mistake should not become a wrong.

However the key argument of that article remains "What impression does TOC wants Singaporeans to know about the new PAP candidate? That he is against dialects? TOC's article does take a position of supporting the learning of dialects as propagated by rehashing an observation made by Dr Ng Bee Chin at a symposium.

This is what Dr Ng said :
“Although Singaporeans are still multilingual, 40 years ago, we were even more multilingual. Young children are not speaking some of these languages at all any more.

“All it takes is one generation for a language to die.”

For that, Chee who was then private secretary of MM Lee Kuan Yew replied in ST Forum page explaining the government's position pertaining to dialects and why it discouraged the use of dialects.

Perhaps we can discuss if there is any merits to promote the use of dialects separately, but it is well known that Lee Kuan Yew had strong convictions that Singaporeans can learn and perform optimally without dialect distractions. The government continues to be guided by Lee's conviction to this day.

Rehashing a reply to the Forum page from an employee who takes instructions from his boss and frame it as if it is his won volition is mudslinging. Playing gutter politics to the maximum.

This is why I asked, is it really TOC's belief that dialect is good for Singapore, or they are using it to run down a candidate for political gain?

Chee would never have known that TOC will jab him below the belt with this, but by stroke of luck Chee chose to address the media in the Hokkien dialect. With that, Chee not only drew the distinction between discouraging the learning of dialects and that of using dialects in day to day situations.

A statement of sorts, Chee is by no means one that goes against the use of dialects, if this is what TOC hopes to frame.

Then he must be inconsistent they may say.

Oh please, give the guy a break. He was only an employee taking orders like everyone else.

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

Low Thia Khiang Creating Haze To A Clean Path

Why did LKY thinks highly of LTK? No praise was reserved for anyone else. This guy got brain.

He turns crisis into opportunity by the click of his fingers. Whether Lui Tuck Yew's decision not to contest in the coming GE was anything close to what Low Thia Khiang thinks, Low's questions raise doubts upon his political opponents and turned the table around somewhat.

Like it or not? True or false, Lui's resignation did in fact hit the button that releases immense amount of pressure off voters who were highly critical of our transport system.

Instead, enormous amount of sympathy had rallied around Lui, as if stricken by a lightning of truth that It was not his doing that the system fails. They began to realized, of which they previously refused to acknowledge how much Lui had done to improve the flow of daily commuters in Singapore.

The release of an article revealing Lui who once only lived in a two-room rented flat completely crushed accusations about him being a million-dollar minister.

This is how fragile political information can be, and this is how unpredictable a sure win platform for the oppositions can suddenly turn against them. But look.....

Much like a clip out of Discovery Channel, a trapped fox clevered itself out of danger.

When the fogginess is gone, clarity of path emerges. This is no good for those who had enjoyed the presence of haze because it brings profits. How do you prevent fogginess from going away in a political situation? Create it, and this is about political life and death.

Was just curious about the interview with Low. Did not the question arise amongst the many reporters to ask if Low Thia Khiang had held such a high regard of Lui and his ability to manage the Transport Ministry, did it not occur to Low to defend Lui when breakdowns of trains occur in the course of the last parliament?

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

The PAP May Just Lose All Seats In Coming Elections

General Elections (2015) frenzies shall begin.

The oppositions has seemingly settled amongst themselves for a No-3 Corner-Fight with the PAP.

Personally I welcome the news. This is one democratic function that the oppositions did not perform well in the past, forgoing fights that deny the incumbent's rights to a dignified win.

First Declaration : No More Parachute!

The other reason I am happy is they have unanimously undo Chiam See Tong's By-election effect, "Keep the PAP government but bring in oppositions".

Second Declaration : No More By-Election-Effect

What does this mean to ordinary Singapore Citizens, you and me?

We heard this during the last election that we need more opposition in parliament to question and to check on the PAP government. This call to have more oppositions no longer, I say this again "No Longer" is valid.

If Singaporeans vote the PAP, this government remains. If Singaporeans don't vote the PAP this government will go. Going into what after would be speculative of that outcome, but it is not that difficult to imagine what follows.

The PAP was right and true to declare during its 60th anniversary that this coming election will be about government, paraphrase to mean not about more oppositions anymore.

Never before was that single vote in your hand been so heavy when the PAP looks set to win every elections easily in the past.

Every vote is secret, every vote is sacred. No one knows who those people at adjacent booths are voting for, but once that "X" is done, you cannot revert it.

Now, this coming GE the true meaning of General Elections has once again come alive. It is all about who voters want to run Singapore. Although at every election the PAP government is never guaranteed a return to govern, but never before has this been so real.

We do have some time now to prepare our minds with this mammoth responsibility, to reflect for ourselves, weigh the pros and cons, pray if you will, who we will vote. Let your heart and mind have a chance to make the decision and not just let what the loud hurrays lead you.

Oppositions Cry : Vote Them Out!

and this is highly possible.

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

MP Visiting Your Home, Were You Our?

Prior to each General Election the same remarks surfaced, and this time the opportunity came when two politicians commented on a similar subject so I try to think aloud and perhaps try to make some sense and meaning out of them.

I have never grown tired of hearing this....."I only see my MP coming during election times". Mind you now that the WP is occupying several electoral wards, they too are not spared from this unpleasant remarks.

Apparently it has become an expected norm to see MPs doing frequent house-to-house visits apart of their inherent duty of Meet-The-People Sessions. I would think it is fair expectation, but expecting to see your MP visiting you can be quite unreal.

There are some real and practical considerations to this exercise. MPs more often than not have to resort to guessing when is the best day and best time to conduct house-to-house visits in order to reap optimal effectiveness.

Sunday mornings used to be the best time when the whole family gets to be at home together. Not anymore. Sundays have become the best day for families to have a family day out, or even a staycation somewhere over the weekend. Then again there is no magic formula in the guesswork. Whatever else, it seems that PAP MPs are unofficially expected to perform this traditional ritual of house-to--house visit covering the whole constituency at least twice within the electoral term.

Some MPs did extremely well achieving over and beyond the unwritten benchmark. How do you do that?

Before we learn of how these MPs are such high performers in conducting house-to-house visits, we look at the basics.

Starting with a typical 30,000 households constituency and 5 years to finish visiting them twice. Let us say the MP spends 3 hours for each session spending 5 minutes each chatting with residents, that session will reach about 36 households. We'll bring it down to 30 households for easy computation on basis that some homes take a little more time. Let's add another 30 households with no one home, thus not consuming any of the allocated time, that 3 hour session effectively covers 60 households.

One 3 hour house-to-house visit session completes reaching 60 households. To reach the same household twice, you need 2 sessions. 500 sessions to cover entire constituency once, and of course 1000 to cover twice.

If you only conduct one session every weekend, you need 19 years to visit the same household twice, not ruling out the same household with no one home repeats itself. Thus once a week is insufficient, so what some super performers did was to triple the sessions a week, and reduce the time for each household to a negligible handshake that takes no more than a minute.

Thus when Minister Tan Chuan Jin spoke about spending more time to understand the issue, he may not in numbers term finish visiting every household in his constituency.

Am I saying Minister Tan is underperforming? I'll leave it to trash sites to spread the lies, but the truth is he has chosen quality rather than quantity. In real politics, you need quantity more than quality. You need exposure, you need to put your face and finger prints all over the place, and you need to make sure no one can accuse you of not doing your job.

Workers party has chose an efficient way of reaching out to residents. They get banners printed bearing information that the MP will be at a certain location to meet residents for a chit-chat session. Tea and snacks will be served therefore it is called "Tea Session". They took pictures of it and posted the session on Facebook to make sure no one accuses them of not doing anything. It is so much more convenient and relaxed on the part of WP MPs.

But did Minister Tan cared more for politics or the lives of his residents? It means that there will be more people pointing fingers at him for not visiting their house. The comfort and satisfaction coming out of his choice is he gets to asked more question, some may be a little bit more personal. He gets to preserve and protect the privacy of his residents by shielding their problems away from public scrutiny.

Finally, comparing Minister Tan's walking the ground with Yee Jen Jong's 4-year walk, how will these two to be appraised together. Yee said his 4 years of walking the ground is wasted notwithstanding that he is being paid by parliament. There is no requirement that he needs to walk in order to be paid. Maybe he is saying that if he knew Joo Chiat were to be taken away, he would not have spent so much time with residents there. Relationship with these people does not pay.

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

Oppositions Did Nothing To Stop Lies & Abuses

"NO HANDS" do take very different meanings pertaining to our opposition parties.

They have "no hands" in any of the trash sites like the now defunct The Real Singapore, and a host of others, but they will also ensure "no hands" will be there to stop lies and made-up stories from getting to the public.

Not just that. They have never shown their hands in stopping vandalism that damaged public properties, they have never shown their hands in stopping insensitive and disparaging racial and religious remarks that hurts, and they have never shown their hands in stopping anti-social behaviors such as public littering.

In other words by having "No Hands" in deterrent, they are welcoming with open arms many things that Singaporeans would consider not compatible with civilized societies.....such as protest that can lead to law and order breakdown.

So when trash sites jeered at Ms Lee Bee Wah's anti-littering campaign, they welcomed such jeering let alone opposition parties going round picking up rubbish instead of selling newsletters.

We have not heard a single word from opposition parties condemning lies made by trash sites that is counter productive to Singapore's political development such as the attached picture detailed.

No Hands opposition parties are in no way handicapped. The unseen arms that welcome chaos are to be feared.

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

MAKE FUNNY OF MRT BREAKDOWN, NOT FUNNY AT ALL

There is a guy whose moniker Veron Rahim, who could possibly be the blogger behind "anyhowhamtam" posted this :

"Pretty funny to see the PAP fanboys at Fap and other pages falling over themselves trying to deflect blame for yesterday's wonderful experience by SMRT.

Even funnier is how they seem to equate every Govt agency with themselves that they are compelled to issue statements on their behalf." 

Since yesterday's serious train breakdown, potshots against government and SMRT were all over social media. 

There is also no denial that FAP FLOPs were quick to swing into action defending government positions and forming a wall to cushion the volleys of potshots.

What is more funny to me is, a person like Veron Rahim who may be some literary award winner joining the fray of cheap and lowly tit-for-tats with street kids (me included). 

Departing from these meaningless, unhelpful comments trying to gain political coins, there maybe be the real issues that we need confront. 

I have this uneasy feeling that the train breakdown cannot be resolved at all.  If my guesses are true, it is a big big problem that the current way of doing patches won't make the problem go away.  Experts and non-experts alike will demand technical evidence to  what I have just said, and I have none.  It is just gut feeling. 

But I felt what is most important for Singaporeans and those charged with the running of Singapore's train system including the minister's office to realize a sense of reality. 

We can make comparison with systems elsewhere, Hong Kong, Tokyo, London etc etc  We are not the same, and we cannot be the same.  We have to look at the problem in our very own context. 

Are we prepared to face with the reality that the entire train system cannot operate as though it is fresh from the mint?  Are we prepared to accept that to get the train system to function as though it is freshly minted, we have to tear down everything and redo it all over from scratch?  These are two pertinent question to ponder seriously.  The Singapore government fortunately has the ability to do that, fiscally.   

Meanwhile, it would be absolutely unrealistic, and that is why I am calling for a realization of a sense of reality that those charged with running the system not to make promises that the train system will run with the efficiency like freshly minted ones.  Promising the sky is hard to reach. Raising expectations only to face backlashes when expectations cannot be met.

And for Singaporeans, we may have to live with occasional breakdowns as in a way we are living with viruses and diseases that may outbreak anytime.  Train breaking down is not the end of the world, and not everything are attributed to human errors.  Yes we want efficient government and we want efficient public services.  We can ask for, in fact demand tip top performance, but there will be time where tip top performance cannot produce the outcome we desire. 

We can only promise what we can deliver, that we will do our very best and we cannot expect more than what realistically can.

HDB'S DESIGN, BUILD & SELL SCHEME

Instead of being appreciated for putting a stop to the DBSS (Design Build Sell Scheme) offered by the HDB, Minister Khaw Boon Wan now become the target of attacks for the recent spate of troubling news related to the scheme.

To be fair, all these projects were already ongoing before Minister Khaw took over the ministry from his predecessor Mah Bow Tan. The spiraling prices asked for by developers tasked with the scheme attracted particular concern of the minister who then made a quick decision to suspend the scheme indefinitely.

The scheme was introduced in 2005 to offer home buyers an additional choice of housing and lifestyle preference on top of an already wide range of different offers.

It was a good scheme with good intention. What may have caused the scheme to go the wrong way could possibly be to a certain degree its speculative element.

The sites chosen by HDB to be tendered out were choicest locations, definitely better that those earmarked for BTO. Developers engaged private architects to come up with designs that equals any private developments. Units come renovated of which costs are built into the purchase price that in a way did away with additional renovation loan the buyer has to take up. Not forgetting that this is packaged inside HDB's financing scheme that we all know is much cheaper than commercial lending.

I have also speculated that this might be the former minister's intention to eventually turn these developments around somewhat like the HUDC of old and make them private.
When buyers felt that these flats can offer them a capital appreciation faster and at a cheaper outlay, they flocked to the scheme. That triggered developers to sense a strong and growing demand and eventually put in higher bids in upcoming tenders.

This is definitely a bubble getting bigger each day. HDB flats almost reaching a million bucks is in the making, and it simply don't make sense. Why so expensive?

Developers tendered land at at high price but buyers don't think there is any profit potential anymore. Selling price for the units began to fall but developers are still carrying the high cost so in order to mitigate the difference, they try to maximize the number of units and perhaps cut some costs on peripherals.

The problems that we now become so familiar with has to be borne by both developers and buyers proportionately.

HONOURING LEE KUAN YEW

Agree, disagree, or what else? These are voices in this national narrative (if I had not chosen the word incorrectly) or a national conversation. But they do throw some light into what Singaporeans are.

Possessiveness : Once Lee Kuan Yew becomes a monument, it becomes a possession of the people. 38 Oxley too becomes a possession. They can exercise their rights over these possessions. Now they cannot.

Superficial : Quick way of getting things done without much thoughtfulness nor deeper consideration. What else can be better to honour a man than to create a perpetual physical presence so that it cannot be lost in time? It does not take a lot of effort and Singapore has the resources to afford one that no one else in any part of the world can.

Opportunistic : Politicians and others who are aware of such weaknesses and took advantage of these by proposing or supporting such calls that they may stand to gain. The Lee Kuan Yew name brings a lot of goodwill, very valuable.

Hollowness : Looking for a god to worship.

To begin with, 38 Oxley is a private property, and there is a last will of the owner that determines what it should be upon demised. The only special between this and every others is Lee Kuan Yew was and is Singapore's First PM. The people can "unusually" or "misnormally" request state intervention to take possession of this private property, which if it happens to someone else and not Lee Kuan Yew then it would have been an utter abuse of authority.

How to honour Lee Kuan Yew in his very spirit? Those who knew him personally and closed to him would have already found his character too unachievable. Just his discipline alone is beyond our reach let alone his unwavering stand on truth.

But it is in the painful effort of following the man's way of dealing with the world in us and around us that we Singaporeans can sufficiently honour him in the best and acceptable way.
His last books were done not in the best of physical conditions, but we can now look back an marvel at his tenacity and perseverance to finished those books before allowing himself to succumb to infirmity.

We ask : Why? What is so important about another one or two more books? Haven't he already put his thoughts in the previous books?

His Life are in all of his books being put together, and they must come complete. If only we understood him well, and treasure the true treasures hidden in his books that he may be honoured in the most appropriate manner.

If only I can read what Lee Kuan Yew has to say, he would have said thus : Don't look to my house for answers. Don't worship my statue for blessings. Don't waste my name in meaningless airports or parks that will degenerate into no more than another name for another place.

Look into my books and I will be very very honoured

http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/dr-lee-wei-ling-honouring-the-late-mr-lee-kuan-yew-honou#sthash.sYiGQnvU.gbpl

DOES THE PAP HAS A SOCIAL MEDIA STRATEGY?

During the hustling of 2011 General Elections, supporters of the opposition were having a field day in social media and practically dominated the discourse over internet.

The PAP was not prepared for such tsunami like attacks, and its supporters were thrown into disarray not knowing how to respond. They were outnumbered and grossly ridiculed.

The PAP had believed and I think they still do that the real battle is on the ground. Social media does not accurately represent true sentiments of the electorates vis-a-vis the silent majority. They are not wrong except that they underestimated the significance of what dominating social media and the internet means.

Very quickly, PAP supporters picked up the ropes of social media discourse, thanks to social media group Fabrication About the PAP. They set about exposing unverified statements and blatant lies that opposition supporters created to win over at discussion platforms.

By and large the PAP supporters had done well but in my opinion are still lacking behind the opposition supporters. Why is this so?

On the side of the opposition, they had a number of well known academics, historians, lawyers and prominent figures in the arts fraternity and bloggers who have no qualms about being public about their support for the opposition, some cloaked in the grandiose of democracy, freedom of expression etc but nevertheless opposition in spirit.

Capable, sharp minded similars on the side of the PAP prefers to remain neutral or anonymous. There are not many, perhaps none that writes with the same convincing power comparable with the adversaries. Gladly of late, certain ex-diplomats has entered the foray giving the PAP side a much needed shot in the arm. But still, he is not one who engages in day to day battle.

The game changer came with the demise of PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew. The "Silent Majority" armed with moral uprightness went into battle and started slaughtering every disrespectful comment about Lee Kuan Yew.

The opposition camp was caught unprepared and retaliated with some half-baked commentaries that don't make sense to ordinary educated folks. Their logic and arguments were incongruent.

For the opposition camp that habitually wins most of arguments through crooked logic now find themselves standing on a shaky platform, and spared no effort in trying to prevent it from coming down disgracefully. They started commentaries attacking the legacy of Lee Kuan Yew.

But this did not work, so they changed tactic by honouring Lee Kuan Yew and disparage Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong instead.

Will this work? This does not depend on how well they craft their attacks but instead on how well the public, in particular the moderates as to how they analyze these commentaries. By conventional wisdom they should win because analyzing matters takes efforts and most people prefer to jump quickly to conclusion by way of the superficial. But we cannot rule out that these moderates are now fairly emotionally charged and in the words of Lee Kuan Yew, their adrenalin are so charged that there is tremendous amount of energy in them to take the trouble to analyze and make intelligent response.

Whether PAP supporters have the strategy and/or the will to do a concerted counter attack in the face of this strategic advantage, a special gift from Mr Lee Kuan Yew, is left to be seen.

TODAY WE DISCUSS ABOUT TRADE OFFS

Western media were talking about trade-of and then Calvin Cheng went to tell them off.

Because of that, Donald Low, a lecturer from Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy was not impress. He said Calvin Cheng deserved a response, and of course that invited a counter response from Calvin Cheng.

But what the hell trade-offs are they all arguing about?

The story goes that those Westerners, angmo writers were somewhat upset about the accolades and honour Western leaders are showering on one man Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's No.1 Prime Minister but their No.1 hated person.

Lee Kuan Yew was no fanboy of the Western media, and vice versa. Doing away with diplomatic protocol and courtesy, the West has always believed that Singapore is so small that their media alone, if not add a couple of NGOs would be sufficient to teach and tell Singapore how to run a country. But for Lee Kuan Yew, it had always been such that if you want to step on my holy ground you better remove your stinking shoes or else I'll kick you hard at where it pains you most.

But to Singapore and to Singaporeans, Lee Kuan Yew is the man. It is not about what is written all over the world, neither is it about what is being taught in the Ivy league.

Singaporeans knew the man via real life experience. You tell them Lee Kuan Yew is a dictator, but what they know of him was a strict father. You tell them Lee Kuan Yew restricts their lives and movements, but these to them were necessary household discipline. You tell them not to listen and believe in everything Lee Kuan Yew says and to them Lee Kuan Yew had always been a man of his word.

So now even as Singaporeans are yet to recover from a state of shock and great loss, you Western media come along and insult the man whom Singaporeans fondly call Founding Father? You want to tell them that all the things Lee Kuan Yew did for them were nothing but sinister exchange?

Hey buddy....take note of this. During the time the name Lee Kuan Yew was first introduced, Singaporeans had to head to streets of Chinatown to get a letter written to relatives in China. Look at the pictures that are proudly hung up on my walls in the living room, and please count how many mortarboards there are. Go round the neighbourhood and you will know we are not unique.

What trade-off? Look at me, do I look like I've been imprisoned and tortured like those appearing in documentaries over RT TV? Singapore's prison is for criminals, not ordinary folks. Have I ever been taken to court for grumbling about parking fine and speeding? No, not when I pay up in time. Are you suggesting that Singaporeans should not be paying fine for parking or speeding offences?

Yes I heard Low Thia Khiang mentioned about Singaporeans being sacrificed for Lee Kuan Yew's policies, and society paid a price for that. I am not sure if Mr Low was talking about me. Yes I was asked to sacrificed, but I was doing it for my family. But in all honesty, we never knew we had in fact sacrificed. Practically everyone lived the same way.

The house we used to live in in Toa Payoh was rented from the HDB, It was small but there were basic services like water and electric was there. We had to squat to do our business if you know what I mean. But comparing with our previous abode, a rented room in a large house in Ah Hood Road where at least more than 20 families sharing two toilets and bathrooms, this little rented house was luxury. Was that a sacrifice? If you want to compare to the executive condo we are living in now, that may sound a lot of discomfort no doubt.

Oh yes, I guess you may also want to know about General Elections in the 60s. There were no less than 10 political parties and independent candidates to choose from. Political activities these days cannot compare. Did you experience fighting between parties? Those days political freedom wasa in their own hands. Only those with guns or associated with guns were later arrested. Some of them ran away to Western countries and tell stories about us. How much do they know by living in advance countries?

So for goodness sake, don't talk too much about trade-off. We know better. Yes there is a price to pay for everything, and what we see today, how we live today are bought with a willing price, not a trade-off.

This footnote is added for Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Maybe others may have questioned your sincerity in offering your tribute to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, after listening to your speech in Mandarin I do not doubt your sincere tribute. The only thing you did,and I can understand that you need to as leader of your party and the opposition as a whole is to make a dent in the PAP.

While you praised Lee Kuan Yew for his tenacity and relentless efforts in building Singapore, you tried to differentiate Mr Lee from the PAP by rejecting the PAP's contribution and influence in bringing about progress and prosperity for Singapore. But your attempt sticked out like a sore thumb. Lee Kuan Yew and PAP cannot be separated nor differentiated. They are synonymous or perhaps homologous.

We do understand the need to differentiate Mr JB Jeyaratnam or even Mr David Marshall from the Workers Party, or do the same with Mr Chiam See Tong with Singapore Democratic Party. You simply cannot do that with Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP.

So your recognition to Lee Kuan Yew having indeed brought about progress and prosperity to Singapore by rallying Singaporeans to unite, it is unequivocal that the same recognition is on the PAP's one party rule in unity. Please bear in mind that when Singaporeans rally around Lee Kuan Yew, they are also rallying around PAP.

As to your reference to sacrifices of Singaporeans, I mentioned earlier that we sacrificed for the sake of our families and our future. We were never interested in power not holding political offices. We just wanted a secured future. To those whose ambitions were to seek political office, they do so for their own ambitions. To each his own. Do I owe them for their sacrifices....certainly not.