Cycling @ ECP

Met up with Ser, Long and Joce for a ride in the Park!

9+ and the rental shop wasn’t open!  Went to rent from another one.

 

Bedok Jetty:

                

Happy Graduation Peeps! 

Mari’s & Kimiko’s Farewell

Mari:

 

At Javier’s place with Kimiko, Erube and Yukiko:

   

Bye bye Mari and Kimiko, visit us someday when you come back! 

On the Floor

 

I like this song.

Think Happiness

As an Aljunied voter, I’m very proud of my vote today after reading the following, extracted from thinkhappiness.blogspot.com:

“An old friend who lives in Aljunied and does voluntary work in the neighbourhood took the day off yesterday to think about his choice today. He has made his decision, and asked me to make his assessment available on my blog. His thoughts follow below. You decide whether or not you agree with him.

Vote in the manner that you think is right today. I will be doing the same too. Majulah Singapura!

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

*****

Dear friends of Aljunied,

I wish to thank my dear friend, Dharmendra, who has graciously allowed me to voice my thoughts here.

I am a very privileged person in that:
a) I am a resident of Aljunied, and maybe more importantly,
b) I have had the unique opportunity of seeing the inner workings of the PAP as an insider and yet, at the same time, be a recipient of its draconian oppression.

At the end of this simple note, you will not be told who to vote for. But you will have the benefit of hindsight of checking off the incumbents and its competition in a fair, objective manner. So let me start.

Compassion

I have written many letters for residents who have come in for unheard of problems, untold horrors, and situations which you and I, may never hear about anywhere – the type of things that make Nicole Seah cry her heart out for weeks and weeks. Some of these things that I am about to relate will sound familiar, the others, not very common. They are not yarn spinned from my imagination but rather, the very cases that Meet The Peoples’ (MPS) sessions see. Uncensored.

True life everyday situations of the 60+ year old cleaner lady who sleeps at her Senior Citizens’ Corner every day because her family has abandoned her, surviving on a meager intermittent income of $400. Unable to rent a room because room rentals are too high. But yet, having $50,000 in her Retirement Account and nothing much else anywhere else.

Or like the pretty, dolled-up mother who dragged her child in and was busy chiding him whilst pouring out her predicament on being unable to pay for her home mortgage because she is a divorcee and not working. Not working? So how then do you pay for your bills ? (Hesitation… and then in a low voice, I service men in my other room to get by. You mean you…? Yes, I have to, my maintenance sum was not paid and I was retrenched when some foreigners came.)

Can you just pause and reflect on this? She is “working” in the one room, while her children are studying in the other.

I can just go on and on and on, but that is not my intent. What we need to realize here is that, there is a crack in the system, and a rather huge on at that. I wish I can tell you about how some families sleep in tents by the beach, waiting for some kind relative to render them some assistance. About how some families get by, about how the banks will come for their houses due to their arrears, about the man who went to jail for not paying his ERP summons! (yes you heard me right!) The list just goes on.

But the point I am trying to drive here is simple. Somehow, with all the usual rhetoric about how many schemes are in place to help, a huge many people need help, in one way or the other. Don’t believe me? Go down to MPS session and get a perspective on things.

Which brings me to my point.

What is my MP doing about it? Is writing a letter to appeal for so and so going to solve the problem? I don’t think so. The problems are more deep seated than just that. Ministers who ask pointed questions on how much is enough should take a chair, sit down and wonder how those words can escape from their mouths.

So how do we solve the problem? Frankly, I do not know. But I do have a view. And let me share it.

I have heard many wonderful things about how Mr Low bothers about the well-being of his residents. I need that attention in my Aljunied. We the residents deserve more, than merely Ministers who come around for functions to shake hands, take photos, smile and be chauffeured away. I don’t need a poster boy Minister. I need someone who can take care of the people who need help, the voiceless, the helpless, the desperate and the destitute.

I need love and compassion in my ward – and that my friends, George Yeo and company cannot provide. Either due to their hectic work schedules or their packed travel schedules. The only one who might be able to help is Cynthia Phua. And may I remind you, that I have witnessed first hand how she is when she speaks. I wonder why the papers did not pick up on the fact that the low IQ boy did not throw the chair on the numerous OTHER times he came to see her. All I can say is, this woman can improve her tone of voice.

My point. Mr Low Thia Khiang and his team will do a better job here. Sincerity is one of those strange things like love, it can be felt yet not seen.

Power

Next up, power.

During the formative years, the desire to serve the people burnt in the heart of men. Now, I fear that the desire to retire in a comfortable home overrides all else.

I am not against million-dollar salaries. But I do disagree if my MP is being paid a few million dollars and only appears during elections, and that too with his many bodyguards. I disagree with this line of argument that you have to pay the top dollar to attract the talent. That is absolutely untrue!

Men and women who have servitude written in their hearts will put service for the people first. Not the paycheck. If the salary is a strong contention point, then obviously we are attracting the wrong kinds of voices to be representative of the people.

My dear friends, George Yeo mentioned that he wants to reform the party from within or something. Let me tell you, this will NOT HAPPEN!

He tried to do that when he was new in Parliament. Vivian Balakrishnan tried that. Now look at them, both poster boys for PAP and its policies.

Why wouldn’t this so called take place? Ah, this is what the public has been missing for so long.

You see my dear friends, the power lies in the hands of only a select few. The rest of them merely string along. And if that is not enough, the constitution has been tweaked to guarantee that.

So the ones who disagree or ask too many questions will be subject to a dismissal (stepping down in the name of renewal), public humiliation (Devan Nair) or covertly moved around.

This power now rests with the ruling party. Not with the people any more.

Which is why there is no need for them to consult us on anything. To avoid answering questions which are asked. To defend their kind should there be the rare debate. And naturally, to tweak the boundaries even further so that the votes come swinging in their favour.

Your MP is impotent in Parliament. Your MP cannot be asking any hard questions. Your MP will not be allowed to ask any questions that run contrary to the doctrine. Debate will be for the sake of debate and not much else.

All the best intentions and promises have no bearing when put forward to the Council of Elders. So you think people like Cynthia Phua or Zainul Abidin or George Yeo will ask any questions?

Let me put it another way, when was the last time you heard them speak in Parliament?

My point. Mr Low Thia Khiang and his team will do a better job here. They have an agenda which is different from the PAP and that will serve my family well. It is good to have some debate on the things that matter. Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh have a fiery attitude that can be harnessed to good use. In Chen Show Mao and Low Thia Khiang, we have the breadth of experience and the depth of corporate knowledge.

Accountability

Accountability is next. (Bear with me here, we are near the end )

The PAP does not need to answer to anyone now. My MP in Parliament was often caught snoozing on camera and I suspect things are not going to change. I believe some debate will help everyone do some work before coming into the House.

I cannot fathom why and how people like Tin Pei Ling can serve. Maybe she can. Maybe she cannot. I don’t know. And I don’t wish to know. Because, I believe, she might just stomp her feet if her higher ups stare down at her. She is not the decision maker. Merely one of the numbers required to form the consensus.

We need to know our current situation on a lot of things. There is nothing secret really. You think Malaysia or Indonesia have nothing to do except look at our reserves and drool? Come on. Anyone who reads a balance sheet can put one and one together to form at least part of the actual picture. So no surprises there really.

My point. Mr Low and his team will be able to ask questions on a huge spectrum of issues. Why GST is at 7% ? If not 7% then how much? Why so much of this and not that? Why Why Why?

Because no shareholder in his company will be able to sleep at night if he does not know the fiscal position of his company. And my friends, we are all shareholders.

I want to touch on my last point very briefly. I believe this is something that can help the middle 50% or so voters who are undecided on who to vote for.

Let me begin my opening my argument on PAP since they seem to have the upper hand on literally everything.

Minister George Yeo is an engineer who went on to perform really well in his portfolio. I know the man and he is warm. Pritam Singh might just be right. GY is in the wrong party. But if you dig deeper, you might notice that he too did not say anything when his pay increased. I suspect reform from within is merely an aspiration.

Senior Minister of State Zainul Abidin Rasheed is in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with Minister George Yeo. He is slated to be the next speaker. And truthfully, he is also a warm man who has a ready smile for everyone. But smiles do not solve problems. And I cannot recall he spoke about anything at all in Parliament.

Mdm Lim Hwee Hwa has a flourishing business outside of politics. But what irks me is that she questions without examining her conduct first. She was the one who could not / refused to give official figures when asked.

Mdm Cynthia Phua is a walkover. So is the other chap.

Next, Workers Party.

Mr Low Thia Khiang, politician and parliamentarian for the past 20 years. Has a proven track record to caring for residents and their well being. Might not sound very good in English, but I can see his heart resonates with us.

Ms Sylvia Lim, lecturer and politician. Ms Lim is a grounded lady. I have seen her on numerous occasions and am also keen to hear her speak on issues which the incumbent MP cannot broach on. Her speech on Ministerial Salaries was positively a stunner given the candour and demeanour she dished it out.

Mr Pritam Singh is a fiery chap who is able to rouse the crowds. I believe his vigour and sincerity will come through when he leverages on his legal background to ask some very touchy questions with a straight face.

Mr Chen Show Mao is indeed a celebrity. He has all the makings of an extraordinary human being, but with a heart. Let us think for a moment, why would anyone in his right frame of mind come forward to be taunted and tried by joining the opposition? Why would he want to come forward when he has to forgo his million dollar salary package and perks to come walk the ground with his colleagues? Surely, the PAP would have died to have him in their ranks. The only reason I can think of is his humility and his magnanimity.

No views on the Malay candidate.

So, to round things up, I wish to say this.

The foundations and mechanics of the system we have today have been laid by our forefathers. People like David Marshall, Goh Keng Swee, Rajaratnam, Lim Chin Siong and so on. The system is already operational, and it does not require any drastic changes to keep it from running.

The current crop of leaders have inherited a “franchise”. All they need to do is to be present to operate it. It is a turn-key so there is not much there to do.
Having said that, competition is real. Be it globally or from within. And our leaders, save a handful, might not be able to appreciate that.

So it is only fit and proper that someone who has international exposure to look into how we can tweak this further. That man is Chen Show Mao. He will be the one who can, with his experience, look at things objectively and make a call. He has within him, the calibre to ask the right set of questions.

And trust me, none of the current Cabinet have anything even close to him. The closest match I see will be Mr K Shanmugam.

And so my dear friends of Aljunied and Singapore, my vote is for the Workers’ Party.

Yours faithfully,
An Aljunied Resident

Please consider the environment – do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.”

Husking

WP leading the front into the car park:

PAP following tight, blasting their volumes:

 

PAP chasing hard, WP way ahead:

 

WP leading the way…

What an informed voter should really know

Quoted from Fish Koh Jie Yu, Facebook:

I’m writing this note because I’m about to "disengage". I feel that as a political science student, I should address a few misconceptions about politics made by both incumbant and opposition supporters. So here it goes:

1. Oppositions are not called opposition because they opposed to everything the incumbant proposed. Opposition is a classification for political parties that do not hold power within the parliament. In Chinese, oppositions should actually be called 在野党, instead of 反对党.

2. Do not confused the government with the ruling party/incumbant. The government constitute both the executive branch, civil servants, national boards, ministries, etc. Voters are voting for a parliamentary representative. The parliament is the legistlative branch of the government. The ruling political party is a SUBSET of the government. In Chinese, they are called 执政党 and not 政府.

3. Building on point 2, it’s not rational to claim that the Singapore government will collapse should a political party fail. This is a big discredit to our civil service. But on the other hand, because the ruling party has control of the parliament, it’s leadership failure will have repercussions on Singapore. The nuances here is the extent. To suggest that Singapore will go straight back to third world is absurd. If I am to put it simply, a strong executive (civil service) but a weak legislative (parliament) means that we have weak(non encompassing) policies. A weak executive but a strong legislative means that we have weak(corruption, poor execution etc) policies too.

4. On the point of civil service. The institutions and civil servants are supposed to be non partisan (do not take sides). The basis of civil service is to serve the people and not any political party interest. There is absolutely nothing wrong for a civil servant to vote for or against the incumbant. It’s a matter of personal choice. They are citizens first. The non partisan nature of the civil service is also the reason why civil servants that want to be part of the legislative branch needs to resign from the service. It’s imperative that the civil servants need to be non partisan because if they are not, they have failed in their duties towards the people they are supposed to serve. Afterall, the civil service exist for the people, not for any political parties.

5. It’s naive of anyone to think that politics is fair. Politics is NEVER fair. Every political party seeks to protect its own interests for survival. Perhaps, thinking of political parties as companies within an industry. Each of them will try their best to gain a bigger market share. Some may try to tweak the rules of engagement, some may try guerilla marketing etc. But at the end of the day, they are always looking to ensure their own survival. We as consumers should be aware that when a company is selling their products, they will use whatever trick they have up their sleeves to convince you that they are better than their competitors ( read promises, fear mongering, gunslinging etc). What we as consumers can do, is to assess these products and decide for ourselves, which is better.

6. Because every political party(company) seeks to protect their own interest, sometimes the country (industry) will suffer. Think of it as the tragedy of the commons. In their attempts to fight for a foothold/obtain a bigger market share, the tactics they used may often result in the country or elements within the country to be worse off. Politics is dirty. We the consumers are often at the losing end. Time to time, we will suffer from poor services and empty promises. Parties tell you to examine their track records and if you scrutinize, you will find many examples where these parties have compromised the country/elements within the country interest to benefit the party’s interest. This is where the consumer needs to take a stand. They need to make a judgement on what’s enough. On whether political parties have in their opinion compromised the common good for their party’s good. Let’s give an analogy. Microsoft had been offering the best product (windows) by sabotaging competitors’ products, forcing merchants to only carry their products and buying over new start ups. While the product is good, we have to ask ourselves if the consumers are shortchanged by Microsoft’s monopolic tactics. Could the industry be better off, if we have alternative system developed by Apple for example?

7. Point 6 leads me to switching cost. Many people had been arguing that if there are opposition voices in parliament, there will be gridlock, inefficiency and potliticking etc. Borrowing the same analogy from above, there are obviously switching cost. The familarity of mac users with windows and windows user with mac is the obvious switching cost one needs to consider when we choose which operating system we want to use. (or we can use linux). However, what most people got it wrong is the cost of switching. In a parliamentary system, you only need a majority 50% of the votes to pass through most legislative bills. To put it simply, as long as one party after 8th of May, have 44 seats out of the 87 seats; Provided that they are all vote yeh to the bill, bills will pass through. The only bills that cannot pass through with a simple majority are constitutional amendments. That requires 75% of the votes. Constitution is a big word and perhaps many people are not familiar with it. So let me use the company example again. The board of directors can pass "bills" to inform the CEO to make strategic decisions for the company. However, if the board of directors want to make drastic changes such as increasing the number of board members, increasing the pay for board members etc, then they have to gather more than just a simple majority. To summarize, fears of gridlocks, government lockdown or whatever are highly unlikely in  the Singapore political landscape.

8. This leads me to the talk about efficiency. Please do not confuse efficiency with effectiveness. We as consumers, citizens of Singapore, ideally, we want both efficiency and effectiveness. However, the the most efficient policy may not be the most effective. The most effective policy may not be the most efficient. I will give you an example. Smoking. If we want to make Singapore smoke-free in the shortest possible time (efficient), we can ban cigarettes. However, this is not likely to be effective because a black-market will arise and the interest of the smokers are being ignored. A more effective policy will be education to discourage non smokers from picking it up and to encourage smokers to quit. However, that’s definitely not the most efficient policy. Kind of reminds me of the ethics question, "If you can enslave 5% of the population and increase the welfare of remaining 95% by 100%, will you do that?" It’s your own preference, but personally I do prefer to have an effective policy that encompasses all than to have a more efficient policy that get things done quickly but neglect others interest.

9. Talking about interest. Here’s what I urged all voters. Do not blame, label others etc. Everyone is voting based on their interest. Their interest maybe greater than themselves but ultimately they are voting on what they are comfortable with. Humans are diverse, some people will choose to buy a product from company A because company A is offering a good product even though they know that the product is coming at the expense of other people. Others have their own moral stand such as refusing to eat shark fin because of the cruelty involved in harvesting it. Like I always say to all, if you can sleep soundly knowing the consequences of what you chose, it’s a good decision. To put it more explicitly, think of yourself as a manager deciding whether you should outsource your factory. You know that outsourcing jobs will increase savings and your own profit but will put the workers with you out of a job.There are many solutions to the problem and the decision you make should be one that you can live with it.  It’s your own moral standing. For my non religious friends, only your conscience can decide. For my religious friends, God will judge if you have live a virtuous life. Not me, not you or any other human being.

10. Last but not least, past performance is not a good indicator of future performance. Using the same analogy. Windows 95 was good. Windows 98 was good too. Windows XP was good. So based on past performance, we can expect Vista to be great? Well I think some will beg to differ. If Windows Vista was F uped, it doesn’t mean than Windows 7 will be F uped too. Saying that PAP had been good so they will continue to be good is a fallacy. Likewise, saying that WP had pushed out good candidates like Sylvia Lim in the last election hence Chen Show Mao will be good too is a fallacy. What past performance can provide is a hint to how the new "products" will be. Our experience should be limited to that particular product and not the company. Microsoft is not great just because Windows 95, 98, XP, 7 are good products, neither is Microsoft shitty just because Vista is F-uped. Some ministers in their previous terms have not done so well. It’s up to you whether you want to stick with Vista or change to Mac. Of course, things are not so easy. Microsoft in it’s self interest will try to protect its marketshare. So they bundled the excellent Office Package like Excel, Words, with their Vista OS. For some other markets, they bundled Windows 7 with inferior stuff like notepad, paint, pictureviewer, and movie maker. If only I can choose exactly what products I want. Alas, the companies will never let me do that and I have to make a decision that I can live with. To choose Mac by punishing Microsoft monopolistic behavior and deal with the switching cost of readapting to a new OS. Or to choose Microsoft and affirm that their product is indeed good and I’m willing to overlook the risk of only knowing how to use one OS.

What goes on in the heart, not the head, that matters

By Bertha Henson

I WAS out all Easter weekend in various parts of my neighbourhood with family and friends, having lunch, strolling around the HDB shops and having several cups of coffee at the hawker centre. And all the time, hoping to catch a glimpse at the contenders for my vote.

Not the old warriors, whom I have interviewed in the course of my career, but the newbies. I wanted to lock eyes with them, grasp their hand and wait for, hmm, pearls of wisdom to fall from their mouths. I had no joy. And now that I will be out of town for most of the campaign period, I would probably not have the chance to meet any of them before going into the polling booth.

Is it really so important? Those few seconds of glad-handing, palm pressing? I reckon the politicians think so, looking at how they seem to be rushing about doing block visits and hawker centre tours. It boils down to name and face recognition and a higher visibility and profile among voters always helps. After all, can you really get a measure of the man or woman in just a few minutes? Hardly enough time to quiz them on policies or their position on issues. But it is enough time for a voter to decide, straight-off, whether the person grinning over those bowls of laksa deserves consideration.

I know someone who decided immediately that the candidate who appeared at his door would not get his vote because the candidate, looking at my friend in his tee-shirt and shorts in the shophouse, thought he worked in a factory. The first words out of the man in white was ‘Which factory do you work at?’ My friend is an architect visiting his father. The candidate who made such presumptions doesn’t deserve my vote, my friend harrummphed. Too drastic? (Oh, that was a few elections ago).

I know of another candidate who picked up a booklet of political satires on a walkabout and muttered that this could only have been done by the English-educated. I was within earshot – and aghast. A retort hovered at the tip of my tongue – that’s because the Chinese-educated preferred sex and violence? As I said, the retort merely hovered. I am glad to say he did not stand in my ward.

As a reporter, I have watched tongue-tied candidates who had to be led by the nose by activists, who are themselves sometimes no advertisement for the candidates. One family told me of how grassroot leaders knocked on their door to tell them the incumbent would be dropping by. They waited an hour, door opened, until the woman in the family decided it was time to sit down to dinner which was getting cold. The door closed.

One memory I cherish: I was with Mr Lee Kuan Yew when he was Prime Minister campaigning in Bedok. Along one corridor of flats, a girl in uniform was in the act of locking up her flat, presumably because she was going to school. Mr Lee asked if her parents were in, she said no. And told her: ‘Tell your parents that Lee Kuan Yew came by.’

It was such a simple statement. And truth to tell, I still don’t know why it resonated with me.

As politicians of all stripes launch into debate about what constitutes a First World Parliament and whether Singapore housing policies are moving in the right direction, they might want to consider that for most people, the first qualifying round so to speak, is whether the candidate is ‘nice’. A relative once chanced upon a Workers Party team in an HDB carpark and yelled out good luck to them. The team came over to her, beaming away and eventually invited her to lunch with them. She declined. The upshot: ‘They are very nice people’.

Did that translate into a vote for them? I don’t know.

You see, for most people, it boils down to what goes on in the heart, not the head. The People’s Action Party has a bunch of smart people, and the Opposition isn’t looking too bad this time in the smarts front. I read everything they say when quizzed by reporters, and I do so always with a touch of cynicism – they have been prepared, they sound rehearsed, what else do you expect them to say? Strip all that off and it comes down to how they relate to you and me.

So here are tips for candidates with tongue only in half in cheek:
Do make sure you have a firm handshake because older menfolk like that in a man.
Don’t ask if people are having lunch when they obviously are.
Don’t let your activists run ahead of you to prepare the path, because voters do not like to feel that they are waiting for royalty to descend on them,
Don’t make divisive statements that single out any community, like the English-educated, or the gays or overseas Singaporeans or immigrants
Do be on time for all events especially outdoor ones because the weather can wear out anybody’s patience.
Don’t assume everybody knows who you are. Even Lee Kuan Yew introduces himself.

Happy campaigning!