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.

MORE CONTROVERSIES LIKE NLB THE BETTER

We are the majority says people who are against the proliferation of homosexuality in Singapore, and with that majority they are out on a campaign to wipe Singapore clean of its sin and immorality. They are not stopping at just having got rid of the penguins and swans out of the children's corner, but to purge Singapore of its impurities and traits of evil found in every corner of society.  They reminded me of the "red guards" in China during the Cultural Revolution.

It is exciting to see Singaporeans who are so used to keeping their pent up unhappiness to themselves suddenly liberated to a new dimension where they are able to excercised some form of authority or power in telling the authorities what to do. That was exactly how the whole NLB saga got started.

While the climate of people-government relations has changed, fundamentals of society are largely not.  Third and fourth generation Singaporeans are still way behind the kind of liberalism practiced in the western nations even though they may show some form of compromising between the two.

Hence it may still be too early to divide Singapore or Singaporeans into camps of conservatives or liberals. 

For both government and people, it is perfectly opportune time to start finding a new conjunct.  In the past when the people prefers to keep silent, the government can only make intelligent guesses through its machinery of data collection.  Not that the voices now are at all that accurate than the old methods, it offers a test element against its old methods.  The current environment also allows the government to adjust itself, and start reviewing and redefining its processes as continuously its long held principles are being challenged.

Some academics argued that the government will lose more votes than it will gain navigating through the transition and transformation.  That's no more than just a person's opinion. Voting decisions are, more often than not made within the final moments.

In this new environment, the government no longer needs to second guess what unhappy people are talking in their private, and to be caught by surprised when the opposition knew everything that they didn't know about during hustlings.  They probably may even have regretted why they had not allowed themselves to be criticized openly earlier.  Nine days is too short to react, and I believed the government would be more than happy to see more controversies such as the NLB saga emerged before 2016.

The people too is now facing a government which they are not quite familiar with. Some may accuse the government of flip flopping from time to time in the way they do things, the very same term government parliamentarians accused the opposition party of.  Flip flopping is neither good nor bad in itself, and really depending what the flip flopping is for.

Eventually I believe the people will recognized the government as no more the same guardian gods that stand guard at the doorway for centuries without changing.

The balance and equations will change with social behavior. The people may no longer need to align with the opposition to have their voices heard, even as the government gets more engaged to voices of unhappiness.

As for now, the rearrangement of dynamics looks healthy for both the government and people.

MY DEVIANT FAMILY

THIS IS MY FAMILY : My wife, me and our cat makes a family of three.  By all account, we are a full fledged functional family.  We take walks together, have tea together, watch the world cup finals together among other wholesome family activities.

But we just don't fit in nicely with what this Google image which I downloaded from Facebook defines as a family, nor that of the general public understanding of one.  Perhaps the difference lies in that our cat is adopted and not conceived by us therefore we are not a "Biological Family" as most families are.

But this is not totally true either.  There are other family structures that are not exactly biological and yet are admitted and accepted into mainstream characterization.  Family with adopted children or parent is one that gets to enjoy social protection and benefits like all other Biological Families.

Indignant, I ranted it out to friends and someone showed me the part in Singapore's constitution that makes reference to the definition of a family.  True enough, cats are being discriminated and deliberately left out of Singapore's constitution.  Indeed if my family do not fall categorically within the narrow definition of a biological family, it should at least sympathetically into the definition of an Experiential Family.

Like a smack on the face I have been told that my broad definition of a family as deviant.  But don't you realized that this so call "Deviant Family" may easily make up half of Singaporean families?  Even the normal Biological Family has become deviant if you may, dressing up their dog as a child for their wedding ceremony.  My friend who has a girl and a dog are calling them both daughters.  Many families have taken their animals as very much part of the family, even to sleeping on the same bed as our cat does.

Is it time to challenge the constitution to allow animals to be definitively and categorically stated, even as gender is also not definitively and categorically stated in that part of the constitution my friend showed me?

NLB SAGA & DIVERSITY

The NLB saga continues with several local writers pulling out of events organized by the National Library Board.  Although it was reported that they were unhappy with the pulping of the books in question, the underlying displeasure lies in censorship of books.  The conundrum arise from the reasons given for the books withdrawal, that of pro-family and being guided by community norms.

The notion of "pro-family" had come to the forefront of public discourse lately, and especially so during the run-up to the Pink Dot annual party at Hong Lim Park.

Pro-Family, rightly so Pro-Creation was used to described the government's stand in crafting certain of its polices, most of which have to do with equality of privileges and benefits.

Some examples are the entitlement to public housing policies, where Build To Order flats, which is also classified as subsidised housing, is once only available to parties with a "family nucleus".  Even now, 3-room BTO  flat types are still not open to singles.  Read more on eligibility.

Other examples are related to leave and benefits that married couples and those with child can enjoy.  Read more.  All in all, the government's pro-family policies are largely geared towards better reproduction amongst Singaporeans, such as the "baby bonus scheme".

And these government policies are seen as discriminating singles, straight or otherwise.  The voices of singles had been extremely feeble, but citizens who are LGBTs found support amongst themselves as a community and had been strongly vocal primarily in the repealing of Penal Code 377A, referring to carnal sex with party of the same sex being illegal.

So the term "pro-family" had been broadly taken out of context to mean anti-LGBT, Lesbians, Gays, Bi-Sexuals, and Transgenders.  Is the government anti-LGBT?  PAP founder and former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew thinks that they are born that way and they should be left alone as that.

And that was how the community norm was formed.  For the benefits, LGBT has been generally taken to also mean homosexuals, those who engage in carnal sexual relations with another of the same sex.  Society generally accepts that there are people who engages such relationship, and they have been left alone all along to their own privacy notwithstanding that there are groups who would outwardly decry homosexuality is a sin.

Thus the removal of three titles from the shelves of Singapore's libraries happened only a wink away from controversies surrounding the Red Dot party, was seen as the government's unfairness towards materials that are evocative of LGBT way of life.

But the confrontation this time is not so much on LGBT but that of "freedom of knowledge", "censorship-suppression of diversity", and government's neutral role in the Singaporean life.  

There are those who thinks that the government should be responsible enough to ensure young children are protected, and there are others who feel that young children should be free to experiment and learn, and then we have the government taking a stand to protect rather that expose.  Naturally when two against one, the odd one out would feel that the government is siding.  When it is about lives of little children, there is no two way for the government.

It is therefore unfair of many parties who champions freedom of knowledge & information and that of a diverse society to blame the government to take a cautious stand in protecting children who may not reach maturity to digest and understand the information they are consuming.

It is also extremely disappointing that certain Singapore writers had decided to boycott National Library Board.  It only shows the lack of broad consideration by these writers who chose to pivot on the proliferation of literature and disregard due care for little lives.

THERE IS SECTORAL INTEREST IN HERE

When blogger Roy Ngerng started blogging about CPF, nobody quite paid attention to what he wrote.  I asked around those who professed to be pro-government and pro-PAP if anyone follows or try to digest what he was writing, none say they did.  It was only supposed to be a 10-part series accompanied by video presentation.  

It went on beyond that to what he later claimed to be 400 articles on the same subject, and a personal appearance at the Hong Lim Park saw only a handful of no more than 20 people in attendance.

When Roy made the unmistakable reference to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for misappropriating CPF money, the excitement suddenly heats up.  Rightly or wrongly, Roy Ngerng became a poster boy overnight.  But of course, partly the hype was also churned up by his truly, for he needed lots of media attention as a possible shield, especially the foreign ones.

When certain prominent bloggers began to make references to Roy in their writings, I asked the why, beyond the why not.  Of course the why not is what's wrong with writing about something that is hot.  Bloggers always do that.  But at the same time I am also wondering if the crowd in Singapore is that small, or the support attention that comes from them is so limited.  Are they frightened of being overshadowed?  To this I will not conclude.  If I do, I commit the same mistake as another who concluded that when two professors agreed to some of his ideas, but refusing to go on record for fear of professional consequences.  It is unfair accusation of the bloggers as people with no substance.

What discomforts me was all unanimously distant themselves from the truthfulness of Roy Ngerng's writings about the CPF, and even calling them specious yet they were in one voice supporting that Roy should not be punished for what he did.  The unequivalent standing between a Prime Minister and an ordinary blogger, state intolerance of dissent or diverse opinions were among the strongest arguments despite all agreeing that the Prime Minister has the right to sue.

How do we perceive this?  Are they saying that the Prime Minister's rights as a citizen, rights to protect the sanctity of a state leader should be stripped in favour of citizen's rights to voice?  Given that both rights are equal, does it mean that a person who is richer and more influential must surrender his rights to justice because his challenger is inferior?  Tell me, what justice is this when no two persons can stand before the law as equals?

Why is having differing voices so important to Singapore?  Look, I am not saying that it is not important, but surely it is not that important that everything else must come after it.  There are many tell tale signs that it boils down to sectoral interest, furthering the interest of academics, writers in a highly competitive and challenging marketplace for readership.  Much as the contents are about building a better Singapore, and the arguments were so very convincing, the ultimate quest is.....really?  

Other social and business sectors too demand that theirs is more important than anything else.  The LGBT lobbies that only when they are officially accepted only will social discrimination achieve improvement.  Pro-Family lobbies believed that as long as the establishment allows LGBT lifestyle to permeate society, the decadence of the family unit will surely follows.  The executives believes secrecy gives them the strategic advantage as well as security, but there will always be lobbies trying to pry open every secret in the name of transparency.

They are all important whichever lobby you lean on, but we only have this number of people and that number of hours to commit.  We just have to make our choice, not much of Hard Choices if we learn to be wiser.  Still we need to thank each sector for their efforts in making a vibrant Singapore.

WHO CAN UNITE SINGAPORE?

During the election campaigning for Singapore's Presidency, Dr Tony Tan said that he wants to unite Singapore.

The foremost thought I had when I read that was, how is he going to get that done?   What an odd statement at the oddest of time.  The PAP just lost Aljunied GRC, and gone were cabinet ministers George Yeo and Lim Hwee Hua.

He was not wrong to say that nor had he fail to understand his role as President.  As President to all Singaporeans, he is to be a unifying figure that is above partisan politics.  But his background as former DPM in the PAP cabinet made his declaration unattainable, not in the "New Normal" a term he coined reflecting the current political climate.

His New Normal sees those who would normally vote anything PAP doing otherwise.  If it had not been Dr Tan Cheng Bock, the Presidency could have landed in the hands to Tan Jee Say.  As it is, the anti-PAP camp can now stop blaming Tan Kin Lien for spoiling Tan Cheng Bock's chance of becoming President for it was Tan Cheng Bock who is the one spoiling Tan Jee Say's chance.

The New Normal is so unpredictable, senseless most of the time, and aggressive at times.  Suddenly Singaporeans find themselves sucked into a world where one has to decide "are you for them or for us?" atmosphere.  The most ridiculous stories are retold by people who are supposed to have gone through good education and when you ask them if Singapore's education system is good, they readily and assertively says NO!.

So I guessed uniting Singaporeans is just being indeterminate.  Getting back to life normalcy is probably what Singaporeans are yearning for.  Returning to "Peace" was probably what former remiser and now super rich man Peter Lim had in mind when he put forth $3million for Peace Studies.  It is just too noisy.

Ironically it is the opposition in parliament that can unite Singapore or bring Singapore back to normalcy, albeit a new normalcy.  The ruling PAP may have done a great deal since 2013 after losing the Punggol East by election, but when people continue to believe that all good things done by the government are entitlement for taxes paid, nothing can ever earn it due appreciation.

This is also one of the reasons why the PAP got so frustrated with the Workers Party for not making a stand for or against the government.  The WP holds the card to uniting Singapore and bringing Singaporeans back to life normalcy, done with noisy quarrels.

The WP with the highest probability of being the next government can and should stand up to matters where the law is broken or where matters that affects all citizens as in the case of CPF.  After all, if it indeed becomes government, it will continue to uphold law and order and will not allow the vandalizing of public properties go unpunished.  But it had chose to remain silent allowing anti-PAP elements to undermine law and order by cheering such acts.

The WP could have picked up public uneasiness about CPF transparency in parliament forcing the government to respond in all completeness and accuracy.  But it chose to allow Roy Ngerng to continue publishing disparaging articles of the CPF by showing disinterest in an institution that is created in the very parliament for which the WP is being part of.

If only the Workers Party would do what is expected of an honourable opposition, Singaporeans will be more than grateful for its magnanimity for acting above politics for the good of all Singaporeans.  Friends don't have to see each other with suspicion as to who are you aligned to.

We want a peaceful, friendly Singapore, not one preoccupied with petty quarrels about things that many a times are fabricated.

Who can unite Singapore and bring us back to normalcy.

SURFING IN THE POLITICAL SEA

Was googling for JBJ and chance upon anyhowhamtam's tribute of the man.  There were some rather interesting anecdotes than comes refreshing to me.

Was pondering over the incident of Hri Kumar's open dialogue on CPF that caused a ruckus online, what LKY said years ago surfaces.  LKY said he is going to throw them (new MPs and ministers) into the sea and let them swim, and this was in conjunction of an earlier statement that he made wanting to sit back and watch how they click..

Putting anyhowhamtam's anecdotes and this together, it dawns upon me that indeed over the years there weren't that many occasions that PAP's MPs had to struggle in the sea of real politics.  Not until now.  Challenges to the government's day to day operations aplenty, Michael Faye,  Asian financial meltdown, SARS, Global financial crisis and others.

So when I thought about Hri Kumar, I thought these days we do have some some very great waves to better our surfing skills. When to go against the tide, when to let loose with the flow, when to be fierce and when to smile.

I've been waiting for decades to see how PAP MPs swim with the sharks, and I feel blessed to be able to see it happens before I get too tired for politics.  As a spectator, I too get to enjoy the ripples and splashes and have my fair share of fun analyzing the game like a good football fan this season.

What is now happening.....Roy Ngerng vs Pm on CPF, Catherine Lim's lost trust, Hri Kumar's dialogue auntyt, Nicole Seah's middle road statement, and I bet more will emerged are all good for Singapore, and the PAP as well.

PAP already possesses the administrative and executive expertise that no oppositions has. There are a number of likeable faces among its ranks like DPM Tharman, Tan Chuan Jin, Heng Swee Kiat, and of course PM himself are all excellent in the game of charm offensive.  What is short are skillful warriors with the ability to understand terrain and warfare.  Hri Kumar being the visibly first.

In the opposition camp, they are supposed to be better in street politics but there weren't that many super politicians in reality.  Chee soon Juan, Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, Nicole Seah, and if you may also want to add Roy Ngerng to the list.  Some may not have surfaced yet, but what we have seen so far are more disappointment than excitement.

Singaporeans, we are in an exciting era of politics, and eventually we will all be inside the sea, like it or not.  That is the arrival of a mature state of the nation after almost 50 years of plain sailing.

Evergreen Bamboo

Between the rest of the world and me, we share one common estate, or perhaps fascination too....BAMBOO.


It's just nice to know that in a world so incensed with disagreements and differences, we can still get to share and enjoy somethings common together.



Behind the humble bamboo a wealth of priceless information is awaiting to be discovered.  I'll just share one that I love, and leave the rest to future encounters.

What I really loved about the evergreen bamboo is its lifespan is almost eternal, and its substance bears unlimited forms only limited by one's imagination.  If you dare to imagine, it will be there.

I am just too humbled to say I wish to invite, but can only wish that friends and strangers who chance upon this space can share a moment with me to discover more things common amongst mankind and to wish the disagreements and differences away.

OPEN RESPONSE TO DR CATHERINE LIM'S OPEN LETTER TO PM

Dear Dr Catherine Lim,

I have something to say about what you told PM in your open letter that we Singaporeans are not trusting the government anymore and the government stops caring. I have a completely different take from you and my story don't come from some dramatic events or over social media.  It comes straight from our daily life.

Trust in the government is written all over Singapore.  No further than the corner of our very own home, trust is there.  We just trust that the the lights will come on and the taps will run, no questions asked.  Anybody doubted the government on this?  Life is just too spontaneous for all things mundane.

Look into our fridges and cabinets of groceries, did we fear there will be no rice, cooking oil, vegetables or even infant formula milk powder?  Singaporeans have no doubt whatsoever that these daily necessities will always be readily available in our supermarkets.  Singaporeans just trusted, but many didn't know why. Had the government not cared, and there was no policy thinkers who saw the need to break beyond traditional sources of food and essentials, we would have risk supplies or been strangled by exporting countries for whatever reasons.

Look no further out of the window, parents & domestic helpers sending kids to school.  Do they ever doubt that the teachers will just walk out one day and go on strike for not getting paid?  Thousands of people in the civil service just turn up for work everyday just trusting that their pay check will automatically be deposited into their account, and that goes for their CPF as well.

Talking about CPF, even as a few thousand protesters gathered at Hong Lim Park under the banner of "Return Our CPF", was there a long queue outside CPF building the following working day demanding their money to be returned because they believed the government had gone bankrupt?  Singaporeans just trusted that their CPF is safe notwithstanding the sowing of doubts and fear.

Singaporeans still head for work each day using the MRT despite possible breakdowns and congestion or even a terrorist attack.  Criticism abound, do we see Singaporeans avoiding the MRT due to mistrust?  Not at all.  We just trust it will be there to bring us to where we want.

Do Singaporeans not know that the queue is long for hospital admission, but trust in that after a long wait comes comfort and absolute professional care.  Compared to the highly visible long wait for admission, the sporadic departures of people discharging after successful surgery and treatment is almost invisible to the public eye, but these form the basis that Singaporeans still trust our doctors and nurses and the entire healthcare system.

Something more common and familiar, our usual pastime of eating at hawker centres.  It is so normal to just order our food and wait for it to come.  Do we question if the food is sufficiently hygienic or fit for consumption?  Lest we forget the Indian rojak stall that resulted in death, still Singaporeans trusted the government to ensure that chai tow kuay stalls and the likes are kept in check so that we don't get food poisoning.

Such deep trust will not be there without decades of continuous improvement and ground breaking ideas from people within the system.  No question asked, we know our sky radar are manned by responsible people that in event of an unidentified aircraft intrusion, it will not come near without being escorted or shot down.

Much talks about Singapore's vulnerability being a social construct, and these talks had belittled the dedication of our men and women watching over our boundaries and skies.  We sleep in peace without a thought that some enemy forces is going to barge in through our door or bombings happening in the neighbourhood.  Our peace comes from our preparedness and not the absence of vulnerability.

I can go on with these nitty gritty things that you will not find in high society cocktail functions nor emotionally charged forums.  However with this, I hope the common man's heartbeat can be heard by people claiming proprietary to our existence.