Accord minister's pay to leader of opposition

May 26, 2011

WHILE I am delighted to read that the policy on ministers' salaries is being reviewed ('Ministerial pay to be reviewed'; Sunday), the review committee may also wish to consider paying the leader of the opposition a salary.

In Britain, the opposition leader, who carries the title of the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition in its Parliament, is paid a salary equivalent to a minister's, on top of his MP's salary.

He is also given a chauffeur-driven car whose cost and specification is equivalent to the vehicles used by Cabinet ministers.

Workers' Party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang could take on such a role here. In a way, he and his colleagues represent about 40 per cent of our citizenry. His responsibilities and contributions should be recognised.

With the increased number of opposition members in Parliament and with the formation of a committee to review political office-holders' salaries, now may be the appropriate time to consider allocating a salary for the leader of the 'loyal opposition'.

This would reflect the inclusive government that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong aspires to have.

I would like to emphasise the words 'loyal opposition' as I feel that Mr Low and his party have always believed it is possible to be in the opposition and yet remain loyal to Singapore.

Lee Tow Kiat

[Yes. We should pay Low Thia Khiang the equivalent of a Minister's pay for being the leader of the opposition. Nevermind if we don't know what he is supposed to do. In the UK the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition is like the Alternative to the Prime Minister, and is a member of the Privy Council and advises the British Sovereign. The incumbent also runs a shadow cabinet precisely because he is supposed to be an alternative to the PM. We don't have a Privy Council, but we do have a Council of Presidential Advisors. Low can be a member!

So what if there is only 6 elected opposition MPs? There's 3 NCMPs! That's nine opposition MPs who can form a shadow Cabinet. Just double-hat a little.

Low as Shadow PM and Minister for Defence, Sylvia as Shadow Minister for Finance and Home Affairs, Chen Show Mao Shadow Minister for Law and Foreign Affairs, Pritam Singh Shadow Minister for Education and Manpower, Md Faisal Shadow Minister for Community Development, Youth & Sports, and Environment & Water Resources, Yaw Shin Leong Shadow Minister for National Development, and Transport. NCMPs Yee Jenn Jong as Shadow Minister for Trade & Industry, Gerald Giam as Shadow Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, Lina Chiam as Shadow Minister for Health.

Entirely workable. And now there is a back-up plan (shadow cabinet) if the PAP fails.

And the next time Sylvia stands up to criticise the Minister's salary, Low will also feel uncomfortable.

I thought the writer of this was a pro-WP supporter, but I realise now, he is a scheming PAP-supporter who seems to be innocently pushing for more resources for the WP, but is actually laying the foundation for the corruption and downfall of the WP!

Incredible!]

Aljunied delay remains inexplicable

May 17, 2011

MEDIACORP'S reply last Friday ("MediaCorp explains why Aljunied result came after 2am") will surely assist voters and viewers alike to better appreciate or understand the constraints and limitations under which it covered GE2011.

But where the public is concerned, the question still remains unanswered.

If, as reported, Mr George Yeo himself was preparing to concede as early as 11pm, and his opponent, Mr Low Thia Khiang, too was already preparing to celebrate victory, what was it that stood in the way of an earlier public announcement of this crucial result by the Returning Officer?

One could reasonably expect the results of small constituencies with around 20,000 voters (like Whampoa and Yuhua) with clear-cut majorities to be among the first to be announced.

Admittedly, Aljunied is not in this smaller group, but the winning margin was convincing and unambiguous enough.

Why then the inordinate delay in making public the polling result of this particular constituency, which was so eagerly awaited by the people?

Hopefully, the official body supervising the election exercise will now offer its explanation to clear the air on the matter.

Narayana Narayana

[Looking at a pile of ballots after it has been sorted, a candidate can see which pile is higher, and which is lower, and you would be an unmitigated optimist to think that maybe the count will be in your favour when you consistently have the smaller pile. Except with very close counts (like in potong pasir) or with very mixed results (some wards going one way, and others going the other way), would an observer be unable to estimate the final result.

BUT the election process (counting) will have to continue. Surely we do not expect the RO to say, pursuant to my eyeballs, I hereby declare WP the winner of Aljunied, because any idiot can clearly see their pile of ballot papers is obviously higher than that of the PAP.

So the ballots still have to be counted to the very last ballot, the resulted checked and confirmed. And with so many votes to count, there may well be errors to correct, discrepancies to resolved, and finally results to be reported by each counting centre, confirmed and finally recorded and announced by the RO.

Delays happen for many reasons. Most are not for devious reasons. Did the delay caused the results to be different?  Did the unduly long delay lead to intolerable excitement causing one or more over-anxious voter to have a heart attack and die?

Does Narayana Narayana (so nice, they named him twice) suspect foul play on the part of the PAP? How? Maybe they were so shocked the asked the RO to delay the announcement so that they have time to write their concession speech? Or maybe the WP asked for more time to write their victory speech. Or to bring more supporters to the assembly area. Or the police asked for a delay to allow them to deploy more officers for crowd control. Or maybe there was a technical problem or some sort or other (Maybe the RO needed to practice saying "Aljunied" properly).

In other words, what was the big deal? Does Nara-Nara write in to complain to the Academy Awards for awarding all the meaningless little titles for 150 minutes before announcing the best picture, best actor and best actress awards? What's his problem? He explained on May 11:]

From ST May 11:
MR NARAYANA NARAYANA: 'Sunday's article on the keen contest for Aljunied GRC ('From political gamble to election history') starts by recalling that Foreign Minister George Yeo called his wife Jennifer about 11pm on Polling Day and calmly told her: 'We have lost.' The report further informs that an hour later, his opponent, Mr Low Thia Khiang, was preparing for what would perhaps be the sweetest victory speech of his career. So, it must seem obvious that the Workers' Party had clinched the critical Aljunied constituency. But the hundreds of thousands of viewers who were not privy to such information sat glued to the designated TV channels awaiting the crucial outcome, which was not announced until after 2am, by which time I had decided to call it a night. A few minutes afterwards, I heard cheers in the neighbourhood and guessed, correctly, that the opposition had pulled off the near-impossible. Viewers deserve an explanation for the long delay (three hours) in what was arguably the most eagerly awaited result of the election. With the winning majority of over 12,000 votes, even a call for a recount was hardly likely to have changed the outcome. Don't viewers and voters need greater consideration in such supposedly 'live' and 'on-the-spot' coverage?'

[Well, I guess, if it's not important enough for you to stay awake, it's just not that important. You can check the news the next day. Or do you expect the RO at the next election to say, Pursuant to Mr Narayana Narayana bedtime which was set by his parents as to be no later than 2.00 am, and to all those supporters standing in the fields with poor cardiac health, and poor bladder control, I hereby declare... ?]

He came, he left, he's back and leaving again...

Apr 27, 2011

I LEFT my home country 16 years back in search of greener pastures and came to Singapore on a work permit.
I married a wonderful woman from Singapore, who has been my life partner for the past 13 years. I bought a home here and fell in love with Singapore for its safety, tolerance among the different races and convenience.
Five years ago, I had to leave for an overseas job offer based in London and thought that it would give us a better lifestyle. The adjustment was enormous, in terms of culture and standard of living. After two years, I decided to return to Singapore since this country had spoilt me in terms of its high living standards, efficiency, safety and ease of living, and I realised how much we missed "home".

Sadly, even though I have more than two decades of experience behind me, I have been doing odd jobs to sustain myself and all my funds have dried up in the past two years.

My wife and I have decided to leave, not because we are quitters but because we want to start a family and feel that the emphasis is now on getting foreigners to fill up the job market rather than taking care of citizens who have given a major part of their lives to the development of this country.
Virdi Bhupinder

[Oh the irony.]

Pragmatism shouldn't be only consideration

Apr 18, 2011

READING the many opinions for and against a multi-party government, I think we need to first re-examine the assumption that alternative parties will challenge the incumbent's policies blindly and that they do not have Singapore's interest at heart.

Members of the opposition parties are after all fellow Singaporeans, who had their education under the same system and grew up in a similar social and cultural climate. And theirs and their families' well-being will mirror the state of health of Singapore.

Granted, they have different ideologies and choose to look at issues through different perspectives, and they definitely do not have the experience that People's Action Party (PAP) members have of running a country. But does that mean their views are definitely always wrong?

Looking at the Parliament speeches, blogs and interviews of the members of these alternative parties, I must say there are interesting ideas raised which seem plausible and deserve further discussion.

While I am impressed by the rigorous process that PAP has put in place to identify its talent pool, there is always a concern that such a formulaic selection process will inevitably value some attributes over the others. So no matter how diverse the talents are as claimed, one cannot help feeling that they are just more of the same.

Although there may be no "groupthink" within the PAP, can it be that the group is so conditioned to think what is best for Singapore mostly in terms of economic values and social efficiency, that other less valued factors are not taken as much into consideration or given as much weight during the deliberation process?

Good deliberation can occur only when groups with truly different ideologies, not bound by one-party discipline, are able to come together to each present their perspectives and understand why it can or cannot work.

[Because this writer's tone is respectful, I shall restrain myself from my usual rant. 

I do not see how good deliberation can occur with members of the group with truly different ideologies. If one party believes that the free market is the best way for economic growth and government regulation just distorts the market, and the other party believes that while on the whole the free market does work, the natural greed and exploitative instincts of businesses needs to be controlled and regulated, the two parties will never be able to agree on how to regulate business. One will insist that it is necessary to rein in excesses, while the other will accuse the first of being an interventionist govt that will only distort and skew the market. How can there ever be a decision?]

Only then can the resulting resolution or compromise claim to have been fully looked at from all angles and not just based on the most pragmatic reasons.

As we have moved away from the survival phase of nation-building, pragmatism should no longer be the main or only consideration for policymaking.

[If not pragmatism, what? Idealism? Non-pragmatism? ]

For me, a good government does not necessarily equate a one-party government, but it is one which is formed by morally sound and competent individuals. I look forward to the day when competent and upright Singaporeans, with the same heart to serve, regardless of their ideologies, can pull their weight together for the betterment of Singapore.

[So are you saying that the current government is immoral, unsound, incompetent and made up of non-upright Singaporeans?]

Lee Jing Yng (Ms)

Don't judge system with Western eyes

Apr 18, 2011

RECENTLY, certain opposition groups have attempted to disparage our political system as being "Third World" just because political power here is largely in the hands of a single party ("WP's goal: A First World Parliament"; April 10).

Politics and economics are closely intertwined, like the relationship between mind and body. Just as a strong and healthy body needs to be sustained over the long term by a healthy mind, so too a country's economy needs a strong and healthy political system to nurture it on a long-term basis.

Each country should adopt the political system best suited to its needs. The two-party system may be more democratic and suitable for some countries, but for a country like Singapore with its historical development, small size, multiracial mix and lack of natural resources, the kind of system we now have is probably a better, if not the best, choice.

So we should not judge whether our political system is First World or Third World through Western eyes. If our economic and other achievements have attained First World standards, then our political system must also be First World, through our own eyes at least. It would be dangerous and foolish to discard something which has worked well just because it does not conform to foreign (mainly Western) norms.

Tan Gim Kheng

 

[I do not disagree with the conclusion, but with the process and the argument. Or perhaps the title.

 

To say that we need to judge not based on Western eyes, is to impute a cultural bias or a cultural content to governance and politics.

 

The difference I see is not about more democracy or less democracy, but the mechanisms of democracy. 

The two party system in the US, with the built-in check-and-balance is designed to slow down govt. That must first be understood. Their historical baggage is an inherent distrust of government. The two-party system has evolved into ideological opposites that sees working together and compromise as the betrayal of party beliefs.

The system is inherently unworkable.

Not because of Western values or perspective. 

But perhaps what the writer simply means to say is be courageous enough to see with reasonable and objective eyes and understand how the current system works rather than blindly following ideological principles which may be unsound.]

Flawed understanding of multi-party system

Apr 16, 2011

I REFER to Mr Daniel Yew's commentary on Thursday ("Is a multi-party system good for S'pore?"), in which he uses the analogies of a committee and an army to highlight the pitfalls of a multi-party system.

Both analogies are flawed.

Having a multi-party system is not akin to increasing the size of a committee. Rather, it is analogous to the view that a committee should be made up of different members of the company. Whether it is for a dinner and dance event or improving productivity, committee members are usually appointed from different departments to ensure proper representation of the company.

Similarly, his suggestion of widening the input of ideas in the army by consulting every soldier, as an analogy of a "many views" system gone wrong, is like asking the Government to consult every Singaporean. No, this is not what a multi-party system entails.

[So far so good. Multi-party system is not the same as direct democracy.]

He also mentioned that an army is best led by an able general who draws upon the advice and experience of his general staff. But isn't this a fine example of a multi-party system? The commanding officer listens and consults not just his rifle company commanders who lead the fighting forces, but also the support weapons and logistics commanders on support, back-up plans and contingencies. Isn't that what a multi-party system is for?

Khong Kiong Seng

[No. A general who consults all his unit commanders is like the Prime Minister who consults all his Ministers, who by the way are from the same party. A less dominant party with more opposition MPs is like a general with fewer advisers as unit commanders are lost to the enemy, or units are commanded by whichever is the most senior officer as key commanders (Minister-calibre MPs) are lost in battle.

But I take the point that the army is a bad analogy, as is the committee analogy.

Because the opposition party in  parliament has no role other than to question and to object to the proposals of the ruling party. They can of course agree and support some of the ruling parties proposals but if they support ALL the ruling party's initiatives, why are they in Parliament? How are they opposition? They can of course offer suggestions and amendments that they believe will improve the ruling party's bills, or they can even propose their own bill for debate (just as Walter Woon did for the maintenance of parent's bill, and he was just an NMP). BUT the ruling party is under no obligation to accept their suggestions or amendments, and they have no leverage to force the ruling party to amend or withdraw the bill for those requiring a simple majority. For those that require a two-third majority, if there are enough opposition, they can block such proposals (usually to amend the constitution).

So if the previous writer has misunderstood the scope of a multi-party system, this writer has not shown a clearer understanding either.]

Apr 16, 2011
Multi-party system can address talent shortage

MR EUGENE Tan gave examples of countries having two- or multi-party systems that failed miserably or ran into trouble and concluded that a one-party system is better ("UK, US? Give him a S'pore MP any day"; Wednesday).

But is it simply because of the nature of a multi-party system or are there other reasons? I doubt converting to a one-party system would help those countries to do better than they are today.

I think it is down to the quality of people chosen as leaders rather than the failure of the system itself. If you had ineffective people operating in a one-party system, it would failed as well.


[True! Very true! Signs of higher order thinking? Or just pure fluke? After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.]

Singapore has done well thus far because of the quality of its leaders rather than the system itself. But can we guarantee that this will be so in the future?

Indeed, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that there is a lack of talent in Singapore. If that were so, all the more reason we should adopt a multi-party system so that we can cast the net wider in search of talent.

We should not accept a one-party system simply because there is a shortage of talent. Rather we should find ways to solve the shortage problem.

Tan Wei Cheng

[And... this is a stopped clock apparently. ]

Chinese may forgive, but not forget

Apr 11, 2011

I SUPPORT greater rapport and cooperation between China and Japan ("Give credit where it's due"; March 28). However, the crux of the matter is that until today, the Japanese government has never openly admitted to nor fully apologised or expressed sincere remorse for the atrocities or inhumane war crimes it committed during World War II.

In contrast to Germany, whose leaders have sincerely apologised for and admitted to WWII crimes, the Japanese government rewrote their school history textbooks and described the invasion of China as an 'in and out' military manoeuvre, and they have even denied that the Nanjing Massacre happened despite the historical evidence.

Historically, China and Japan's relationship has been wrought with events that have left deep wounds on China's psyche that cannot be easily erased. Such incidents include the Japanese invasion prior to and during WWII which caused millions of Chinese casualties, the infamous Nanjing Massacre, biological and chemical warfare and experiments conducted on the Chinese people by the Japanese Army (for example, by their notorious Unit 731) and lesser known events such as the Jinan incident.

This occurred in 1928, when Japanese troops attacked, killed and injured thousands of Chinese civilians, including diplomats, just five years after China had rendered generous aid to Japan following the Great Kanto earthquake. This was then a show of ingratitude and treachery by Japan towards China.

China bureau chief Peh Shing Huei's suggestion to China seems to be that instead of reminding its younger generations of the facts of the Japanese atrocities of WWII, it should educate its people on being grateful to the Japanese for its loans and grants since 1979.

This seems to endorse the thinking that giving such loans is considered enough to redeem whatever crimes committed by Japan.

Japan's loans are merely payments in lieu of monetary wartime reparations, as Mr Peh has pointed out.

Although China's government has reached out diplomatically to Japan, short of a proper apology and admission of guilt, the Chinese people may forgive, but not forget, Japan's WWII atrocities and crimes.

Chiang Kwee Seng

[I do not intend to defend Japan, or to explain culture, context, or history. But this is history. For the writer to be alive at the time of the Nanking Massacre, he would have to be at least 83 yrs old. For him to be aware of the brutality about him if he was indeed in Nanking, he would have to at least 2 yrs old, so he would be 85 today. For him to be elsewhere and to hear and to understand the horrors of war, he probably need to be at least 5 years old then, and 88 today, and I would wonder what kind of adults would tell horror stories to a 5 year old.

My point is, I do not believe the writer is an 83+ year old survivor of Nanking. I believe if he was he would have stated that up front.

What drives a person to bear an 83 year old grudge for things that happen to a group of people ethnically the same as the person, but with no other explicit connection?

The Japanese may not have apologise for the atrocities to the satisfaction of some, many, or most Chinese. If some, many or most Chinese feel the need for the Japanese to apologise and would die unhappy if they do not hear that apology, then I am very sad to inform them that they will die unhappy.

But understand, that the Japanese are not holding you back to those days in 1928. The people who personally carried out those atrocities are in all likelihood dead. The people to whom those atrocities were done, died then or soon after, or if they survived those years, have since passed on either peacefully, or with great disgruntlement in their hearts. And the people who resurrect and relive the horrors of those days, even tho they were not there, are re-victimising themselves, it seems to me, to no good purpose.

I do not understand these people.]