Thai teen's tragedy: Will SMRT help her?

Apr 9, 2011

I AM saddened by the photograph of Thai student Peneakchanasak Nitcharee yesterday ('I want to see my family').

The 14-year-old's hopes and dreams have been shattered by a horrific accident, which should not have happened had appropriate safety measures been taken swiftly on the Ang Mo Kio train station's open-deck platform.

Her parents, whom I gather from yesterday's report are from a low-income background, have stated that they are not in a financial position to pay for the hospitalisation costs.

While I have no doubt that kind Singaporeans will rally to assist them financially, as they have so often done, I am curious to know whether SMRT will do likewise - if not from a point of legal liability, which has never surfaced in all the past fatalities, at least because of a strong tug at the heartstrings in this case.

Ralph S. Lesslar

[Good-hearted but stupid. Moral hazard. Recall the man who committed suicide at Clementi MRT Station (Oct 2006). His sob story tugged at heartstrings and his family received a lot of donations. Rumours was of about half a million. Some other rumours went as high as a million. In any case it was in the hundreds of thousands from verifiable sources.

Two weeks or so later. Another man killed himself in the same way. The media decided to play down this one. Or we would have a flood of suicide to invoke public sympathy.

While I have no doubts that this was a tragic accident. This accident can easily be recreated with unpredictable outcomes.

SMRT has no legal liability here. But paying compassionate compensation is a moral hazard.]

A single party can't represent all views

Apr 8, 2011 PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong's argument that 'if the PAP can't assemble a second team, I don't think the opposition will find it easier' shows a misunderstanding of multi-party democracy ('Not enough talent for two A teams'; yesterday).

It is not the job of the ruling party to assemble a second 'A team' - it is the opposition's. A two-party system is not about providing just two competent teams but also two different policy options.

Voters would not simply want two 'A teams', each with similarly impressive credentials but from the same party and holding largely similar views.

The point is to have two 'A teams' that represent different views and needs of constituents. The dialogue of these multiple viewpoints in Parliament is what refines national policy, ensuring all sectors of society have their interests considered.

Scarcity of talent is a poor argument for not having a multi-party system. No one party can presume to speak for the needs and views of the entire populace. In the last general election, the People's Action Party (PAP) garnered only 66 per cent of the vote. This means there is a sizeable minority of the population wishing to be represented by a different voice in Parliament.

The PAP may call itself a 'pragmatic party' that is 'ready to take in good ideas', but being pragmatic does not mean it does not have its own underlying ideologies and principles - meritocracy, for instance.

[I understand the point, and I understand the problem. Saying the PAP has an ideology such as "meritocracy" is like saying the PAP have an ideology like "rationality", or "fairness". What I mean by understanding the problem is that a two party system requires -- no, practically demands ideological absolutes. One pro-life. One pro-choice. One for hands-off govt, one for govt intervention. But PAP is not ideological except for its stand on integrity (non-corruptibility), and meritocracy. How does one take a viable stand against those position.]

However open a party may be to new ideas and differing opinions, it has its own party line to toe and cannot possibly stand for a plurality of viewpoints, especially when they are contradictory. Voters would be unreasonable to expect a single party to represent all viewpoints; that is why we have multiple parties.

[Yes, there will always be multiple viewpoints. What does that mean politically? This is what happens in the US: When the democrats are in power, businesses are tax, and welfare is provided. Then a few years later the republicans take over and reverse the policies... and then some. Then the democrats come back, reinstate their policies, reverse other new policies enacted by the GOP, etc. Two steps forward, 3 steps back. Legalise abortion, cut funding to planned parenthood. Allow gay marriages. Cancel it. Does this remind you of our northern neighbours political decisions and announcements?

The solution to this is to based policies not on ideology, religion, faith or even philosophy, but on rational consideration of the facts and the effects. Which is not to say that policies have not changed under the PAP. From family planning to pro-marriage and fertility. From no casino to two IRs. But such reversals are publicly discussed and all views are aired. There were strong religious resistance to the IRs, but secular reasoning prevailed, despite the presence of some religious people in the Cabinet.]

It would also be wrong to characterise the job of the parliamentary opposition as 'waiting and watching just in case the PAP screws up'.

[PM Lee was not saying the role of the opposition was to watch and wait. His example was of someone who is competent, talented and wants to contribute. He can either join the PAP and start contributing immediately, or join the opposition and wait for the PAP to fail so that he can start to make policies.]

The very point of the multi-party system is that opposition politicians, though not forming the government, can still contribute to policy discussion and refinement in a very real way, which is through Parliament.

[Idealistic at best. Look at the US with its mature two-party system. Opposition obstructionist tactics do not "refine" policies or bills. They weaken, distort, dilute, and divert efforts and initiatives leading to compromise that waste time and resources. The US govt will shut down on Friday (Sat noon SG time) because their partisan and gridlocked Congress cannot agree on the budget.

Realistically, opposition can raise discussion on issues, and if in the course of the discussion, the PAP or ruling party fails to answer to the satisfaction of the people, this can be pointed out during election to remind the people of the inadequate response of the ruling party and perhaps persuade the people that it is grounds to vote out the party.

But if that is the role, then NCMP and NMPs can perform just as well if not better. I always felt that Siew Kum Hong and Walter Woon were great NMPs and perform better than opposition MPs.]

The parliamentary opposition's raison d'etre goes far beyond whether the ruling party 'screws up' or not. So long as there are different views in society and voters who do not wish to be represented by the ruling party, there is a need for more than one party in Parliament.

Michael Cyssel Wee

[Let's just say I disagree. Not every view is worth a party. Some views are so narrow, they become one dimensional caricatures. Some views are temporary. Some views are irrational. Some are misguided or dumb.]

Minister's Salary - The Price of Honesty?

Apr 2, 2011

Pricing honesty misses larger concerns

THE reasons cited by Mr Kanagasabai Haridas to support ministerial salaries miss the larger concerns of many Singaporeans ('Singapore has priced honesty correctly'; last Saturday).

Mr Haridas states that financial incentives are necessary to entice leaders because we are a young country.

Singapore will always be young compared to others with a long history. Does that mean financial incentives will always be necessary?

Even if we view youth as an absolute value, at what age can we wean ourselves off financial incentives?

Just as we would not teach our children that wealth is all that matters, we should not entrench the pursuit of financial incentives in political office.

Second, Mr Haridas argues that the extended political life of a minister in Singapore makes it necessary to pay honest ones sufficiently.

The thinking that ministers must be rewarded handsomely if we want them to serve honestly is not the way a government should operate. The political lifespan of a minister should instead depend on the people's mandate via free elections.

Third, Mr Haridas suggests that only those who have already made their fortune can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.

Such a view perverts a minister's responsibility to dedicate himself to the betterment of the lives of the people, and not seek office for monetary gain.

Finally, Mr Haridas notes that ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit after their political career.

This statement assumes that the ultimate reward for serving the people is wealth. It ignores the satisfaction gained from knowing that the people have been served well, and that the country has been steered in the right direction.

It also ignores the respect the people have for a minister who has selflessly served them.

The first priority for ministers anywhere is to serve the people and the country.

Tim Mou Hui


Mar 26, 2011
Singapore has priced honesty correctly

AS THE general election looms, ministerial salaries are once again being discussed with renewed vigour on various Internet platforms.

My view is that the current pay structure is appropriate for Singapore simply because it is the price of honesty.

We have had a government ranked among the highest for being corruption-free. There is certainly no need to grease any wheels in Singapore to get things done: That validates the strategy of pricing 'honesty' appropriately.

Of course, this then begs the question why the price of honesty is so much lower in other comparable countries with a relatively honest government. Surely, the price in such countries should not be vastly different compared to Singapore? There are, however, several plausible reasons for this divergence.

# First, we are still a young country and we have a long way to go before we create a solid identity and a deep sense of belonging that will act as a counterweight for financial-related benefits. This will come only with time.

# Second, the turnover of ministers in comparable countries is relatively much faster compared to Singapore, where a minister can be in the Cabinet for decades with no fixed term limit.

When you stretch the political life of a minister that much longer, the price of honesty via remuneration must be greater to ensure that the government remains, well, honest and incorruptible.

# Third, the candidates who enter politics, as is often seen in countries like the United States, may have already made their fortune, as in the case of former US treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who was chief executive officer of premier investment house Goldman Sachs before he joined the White House Cabinet.

Such holders of high office can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.

Yet others may enter government early with the long-term aim of leveraging on the experience and influence they so gather when they leave to join the private sector.

Singapore does not offer such luxuries because we are a small country with a small pool of talent that can be considered for key government positions.

# Lastly, Singapore ministers or prime ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit that they can embark on at the end of their political careers like some of their counterparts elsewhere.

Kanagasabai Haridas
Denver, Colorado

[These are two civil, mostly thoughtful letters with valid if incorrect concerns.

Let's get the usual quotes and corollaries out of the way: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Power attracts the corruptible. And my own thoughts: "The real power tends to ensure that the nominal power positions are taken by those they can influence and corrupt to their own advantage."

What do I mean?

If you are making $5m a year as a CEO or a professional (lawyer, doctor, banker) all you really want is to be left alone to continue to make your money not simply for yourself, but to ensure that your family is well provided for.

What you want is a stable environment to work and raise your family. You want this to cost you as little as possible.
And you want to be left alone to do your work.

For this to happen there is a need for stable government. Maybe even good government.

If ministers salaries are say $100,000 a year, you can expect that very few professionals at the top of their career will want to make the sacrifice. Why should they? They would rather find someone they can influence, and finance their political campaign so they they "own" them and can influence if not control them when they are in power.

Or if they do take up the political leadership, it is so that they can directly plunder the resources of the country, or use their power to corruptly fleece the citizenry.

So look at the world.

There are some countries where the corrupt are in power, because that's the best way to control the natural resources of the country and channel revenues into their own pockets. Gaddafi in Libya is one.

There are other countries where businesses finance politicians in order to ensure that their politicians get into power and can be pro-business. The Republicans in the USA are basically that. Look up John Boehner and his connection to businesses.

In either cases, the actual salary from their political position can be very modest. But their lifestyle shows that they have alternative, possibly undisclosed income.

The US President's salary is like $400,000. But to get elected, they are willing to spend HALF A BILLION for their campaign. EACH! Why? To do volunteer service? Give back to the country? It takes a multi-millionaire to run for president or at least someone with serious backing from rich people or corporations. Hilary Clinton spend millions of her own money to try to get the Democratic Party's nomination for presidential candidate.

(Afternote: For our Presidential Elections, for the over 2 million voters, the candidates spent a total of just over $1.3m, or about 65 cents per vote. )

So which is the corruption in Singapore. Are the leaders accumulating wealth from our natural resources? We are blessed with no natural resources. Have they been bought by the rich and wealthy? If they have there will be signs.

In the US, the rich corporations get lots of tax loopholes. Are there any here?
In M'sia and other corrupt govts, the usual suspects get all the govt contracts often by closed tender or direct awarding of the tender. Is this done here?

The answer is no. Singapore is clean by independent assessment. Transparency International Corruption Perception Index lists Singapore, Denmark and New Zealand as the 3 countries with the highest rating (i.e. least corrupt) of 9.3.

So it is not about young or old country. It is about clean govt, properly priced.]

Update Jul 2013: Latest CPI:
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/
Singapore ranked 5, with score of 87.

Stop meddling in Libya

Apr 4, 2011

JUST like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the world is again witnessing another illegal invasion spearheaded by the United States.

[Illegal? No. It was UN sanctioned at the request of Libyans.]

Is this act of aggression justified? While the US and its allies may point to the United Nations' mandate as justification for their actions, often, they use the carrot and stick approach to persuade smaller, more vulnerable, non-permanent members of the UN Security Council to vote in their favour. It is all too easy to get countries like Lebanon, Gabon, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Nigeria to vote in favour of the UN resolution in exchange for "goodies".

In contrast, it is interesting to note that the five abstaining countries - China, India, Brazil, Germany and Russia - are larger countries that can withstand the pressure from the US and its allies to vote in favour. Together, the abstaining countries make up almost half the world's population. And yet, they are powerless to stop the mindless aggression unleashed against Libya by the US and its allies.

[Or perhaps for countries like Bosnia, Nigeria et al, the plea for help to prevent violence and genocide is one they can readily identify with because of their history? Perhaps they wish there were outside help for them?

As for the abstainers, China will of course object to any foreign intervention even at the request of the citizens under attack by the leader. Do you remember Tiananmen Square? If China approves of such action, they open themselves to such options if ever they need to clamp down or use violence on protesters in their cities, or in Tibet, or Mongolia, or any other restive province. Same for Russia.]

The 2003 invasion of Iraq has been shown to be an illegal act of aggression that resulted in the unnecessary and brutal deaths of at least a million Iraqis. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in the country. The US had deliberately misled the rest of the world in order to pursue its personal agenda of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Sadly, we are now seeing the same scenario unfold in Libya.

Where is the evidence that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is massacring civilians as claimed by the US and its allies?

[See story below. Open your eyes. Read widely. And not just from US Conservative media. So what lies are you claiming the US are telling now?]

The real agenda here is the removal of Col Gaddafi himself (under the guise of supporting the Libyan people in their fight for more democracy) because he has been a thorn in the side of US designs in the area for years, given his consistent opposition to US policies.

The US and her allies must stop meddling in Libya's internal situation. Real change for the country must come from within, not without.

Siow Jia Rui

[So why are you writing to the ST? You are uninformed, misinformed, and biased. I do not even see the point of your letter. Unless you believe the ST is an agent of the US.]

Apr 4, 2011

Ship brings rare glimpse of Libya's bloodiest front

BENGHAZI (Libya) - THE wounded men on the aid ship from the besieged city of Misrata, most of them torn apart by shrapnel and bullets, tell of the bloodiest front in the revolt against Libya's Muammar Gaddafi.

They speak of a city under lockdown that has gone weeks without electricity or running water, where snipers have cleared the centre and mortar rounds and rockets rain down at random on residents huddled inside their homes.

The more than 250 patients were brought on Sunday to the rebel port of Benghazi on board a Turkish aid ship, which was to pick up another 100 or so wounded people from the eastern front before steaming on to the Turkish port of Cesme.

On board, a pale Mohammed Muftah, 34, describes how he was sitting at home on a quiet Friday morning when a barrage of mortar rounds fired by Gaddafi's forces slammed into his residential neighbourhood.

'They killed entire families, women. I have a neighbour who lost his wife and his three children,' he said. 'They did it just to terrorise people.' Mr Muftah has shrapnel wounds up and down his legs and in his back and neck, but soon he will receive further treatment in Turkey. His wife and six children are still in Misrata.

Mohammed Ahmed, who sits on the mattress next to his, has a thick bandage around his right arm with surgical pins sticking out. He was standing outside his home with friends and neighbours when a mortar bomb exploded next to them, the shrapnel killing six of his neighbours and carving off most of his upper arm. 'The doctor said it's serious... it's down to the bone,' he said. 'I'm with the revolution, but I don't have a gun,' he said, as tears streamed down his face and his voice broke into sobs. -- AFP

[If the US wanted to illegally invade Libya, they had reason or excuse over a month ago.]

http://theweek.com/article/index/212363/violence-in-libya-should-the-world-intervene

Are high-rises in S'pore quake-proof?

Apr 3, 2011
YOUR LETTERS

Last Sunday's article, '1,200 buildings in Bangkok 'at risk'', made me wonder how safe Singapore's high-rise buildings are, especially in the light of recent earthquakes in Japan, New Zealand and Myanmar.

I am curious to know if the Government has looked into and evaluated the robustness of the structures of the many high-rise buildings here.

Are these quake-proof?

Singapore has experienced light tremors arising from quakes in Indonesia in the past, and although it has no record of natural disasters, nothing is certain now.

If a natural disaster were to occur unexpectedly, will Singapore be ready? I worry that we may be taking our safety for granted.

Sharon Lo (Miss)

[You're RIGHT! the buildings in Singapore are NOT quake-proof! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!

Is she gone? Good. One less stupid person in Singapore.

But the Forum Page Editor is still making money being stupid.]

MPs should focus on national issues

Apr 1, 2011

THE parade of candidates for the upcoming general election has begun and they all pledge to serve their constituencies.
What has been left unsaid is their opinion on national issues.
Are we voting for local municipal councillors or parliamentarians?
Local councillors focus on neighbourhood matters while parliamentarians have a duty to address greater matters of state.
Are our candidates satisfied merely with ensuring that their housing estates are clean and the lifts are working, and writing letters on their constituents' behalf?
If that is so, why would we need so many Members of Parliament? Why not a separate slate of local councillors?
Our parliamentary sittings are a bare minimum and done with swift dispensation that suggests more of going through the formalities.
Question time is limited and speeches have been shortened. Given the increased number of MPs, some may not be able to speak or present their views.
Parliament is the country's highest institution. There are many issues of a higher order that challenge Singapore - from population policies to housing and cost of living, and the nature of our society.
Where does each candidate stand on key issues? We should do away with a general election if it is merely aimed at electing a cohort of like-minded MPs.
Parliament should be reserved for politicians who can envision the nation's future, challenge the status quo, influence policies, effect change, and dwell on the larger issues at stake.
Singapore has been blessed with good, honest and capable government, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.
Changes made to constituencies and Parliament have over the years been more designed to entrench an existing government than to allow for change.
A good, fair, honest and effective government need not fear losing an election. In fact, any fear of losing its privilege to govern should spur it to remain so.
Michael Seah

[What a load.

This letter writer is simplistic, naive, idealistic, and uninformed.
The MPs are your representatives. The American revolution ran on this slogan: no taxation without representation. The PAP strive to provide a wide range of representatives to represent Singaporeans of all diversity: the young, the old, the various ethnicities, and the different languages, religions and cultures. You want less of them?
From the MPs are drawn the Ministers. These are the ones focusing on the national policies. But lest they end up myopic or cross-eyed, there are also Government Parliamentary Committees which are drawn from the MPs. These GPCs study, examine, scrutinise the policies of the respective ministries for effectiveness, accountability, relevance, and perhaps even value for money.

But the reality is that given the chance, our MPs will become less diverse.
When Chiam See Tong was contesting against Mah Bow Tan, MM Lee (then PM) campaigned for Mah. He compared Mah's brilliant scholastic achievement vs Chiam's "late bloomer" life. Big mistake. Chiam was a grassroot MP, who had worked to build up his support base. Mah only had the branding of the PAP. The people of Potong Pasir voted for Chiam and that was history.

Look at the opposition MPs - Chiam, Low, and in the 1991 election, Cheo (Chai Chen) and Ling (How Doong). These are all grassroots/ heartlanders MP. Low's ace is his ability to connect with the people in Teochew. Ling or Cheo (can't recall which, or maybe both) have "gutter mouth" and used less than polite language in Parliament when they were not campaigning in dialect. Chiam is a man of the people. Even JBJ was respected for championing the common man/heartlanders.

This has forced PAP to ensure that the heartlanders are represented by the likes of Ang Mong Seng, Seng Han Thong, etc. But the PAP also need "brains". Very few MP/Minister can be like Khaw - a man of the people, as well as smart. So the GRC is probably as much to ensure that the "brains" are paired with the "grassroots/heartlander" as well as the minority.
Without the GRC, we would ALL be represented by Chinese, dialect/mandarin-speaking heartlanders MP from PAP as well as the opposition. And our parliament will become like Taiwan.

Kenneth Jeyaratnam will probably not win. He's not his father. Chee also can never win. He has a bloody stupid accent. Probably can't speak dialect or even mandarin. SDP's new recruits, Vincent Cheng and Fernandez are also not heartlander types and old to boot. Sylvia Lim would make a good opposition MP and I hope she looks for a vulnerable SMC and wins the seat. *BUT*, I also don't think she can win because she doesn't have the heartlander appeal. A bit too "atas".

Interestingly, if PAP allows Michael Palmer to stand in an SMC and he *wins*, I will be pleasantly surprised. 

So the suggestion that an honest effective govt need not fear losing is a load of bull. People vote for who they think they can bend, if not corrupt.
They want MPs they can "trust", and by "trust" they mean speak their language, understand and share their fears and help them protect what they have. That is why Mah lost to Chiam. Chaim was someone they could identify with. Mah is a scholar, an elite and may not identify with them.
In other countries, those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't neither do nor teach, become politicians and peddle their influence to whoever can pay them best. In SG, those who can govern, should govern, are deliberately chosen to govern, and are paid well to govern, because if they are not, they would go back to doing what they do best because they can.]

Don't label critics without considering their views

Today
Apr 01, 2011
Letter from Tan Pei Ying

AS a young Singaporean with that all-important vote in my hands, I believe I express a concern many of my peers hold. With news of Ms Tin Pei Ling's candidacy in the coming elections, an interesting bit in a Today report on March 29 caught my eye: "In the 2009 November/ December edition of the party's Petir magazine, she was quoted as saying that some online feedback 'is cynical'. 'Maybe some young people feel a need to be different, and they express it by being anti-establishment,' she said then." Is there a hint of arrogance here?

While some may indeed make cynical comments out of "a need to be different", any problem should be looked at from both sides. I hope Ms Tin has considered those comments in depth and analysed the root cause of disgruntlement, rather than simply attributing it to "a need to be different".

I personally have no qualms about a candidate's age or, and choice of lifestyle is not my concern.

However, the ability to analyse, empathise and be open to alternative views from people of all walks of life is an important attribute of any potential politician. Remember, Singapore is uniquely composed of various ethnic groups, income earners and needs. There should be sensitivity.

It is worrying if any of our future leaders label citizens collectively as "anti-establishment" or vice-versa as a starting point when their ideals are not aligned.

[A voice of reason in a sea of unreason? I take issue with the comment that "some feedback are cynical". I think MOST feedback are useless, irrelevant, illogical, paranoid, self-serving rants. Considering those comments in depth will drive most people insane. Symptoms of this insanity? They post replies/further comments.]