Dr Tony Tan wins Presidential Election with 35.2% of votes. Sore losers erupt.

ST Facebook post:

"It is disturbing that an elected president did not receive more than a 50 per cent majority of votes," says our reader. Do you agree?

Selected comments from Facebook (I've taken those that wanted a re-vote. There were also some who said, we should live with the results as it is. But there were sore losers. Seems like those from the TJS camp. The TCB camp were mostly pro-stable govt and would have wanted TCB, but accepted TT as president.)

"Ya 65% did not vote for TT! Re election ..TT vs TCB!"

"Yes, agree that there shuld be re-election among the two. only then, we'll see who's the real winner!!"

"I find hard to accept TT as our president as 65% of the voters didn't support him. It just goes to show how many Singaporeans dislike him."

"Should use the Altenative Vote or Instant-Runoff election methods. ALOT more fairer in a multi-cornered contest."

"TOC and TR FB voters liked for TCB and TJS. We were at one point did not know who to vote for. Therefore I disagree. TCB is the only candidate that appeals to both Pro and Oppositions parties."

My Comments:
In such an election, you choose who you think would be the best president. 25% thought TJS was the one. No one else agreed. 5% thought TKL was the one. no one else did. Everyone has one vote. One opinion. One choice. No "backsies". Welcome to the adult world. You're not in primary school anymore.

If you think TCB would have been the better choice why didn't you vote for him in the first place?

If you voted TJS or TKL as the best choice why are you now willing to back another? What happen to strength of conviction? Loyalty? Or now that you know the "crowd" is with TCB, you wanna follow the crowd? Where is your independence of thought you bunch of cows?

----

Tan Jee Say is one deluded candidate. He thinks (constitutional) rules don't apply to the presidency. Not surprisingly, he attracts people who are equally deluded, and thinks (election) rules don't apply. He lost the GE. He thinks the PE is a second chance. Nor surprisingly he attracts people who think life is a game, that you can always reload saved game if you lose and get a second chance.

The PAP warned about a freak election result if voters anyhow vote. Well, we got a FREAK election result, didn't we?

TCB should have won, but because TJS conned gullible voters into supporting his delusional presidential gambit, he pulled enough voters away from the real alternative.

And the TJS voters now say, "sorry sorry, I anyhow vote. Have a second election, can?"

If you truly believe in your candidate, do you stand and defend him even in defeat, or do you find the next credible challenger and back him? The candidate attracts the people that reflects his character. The TJS voters who now asks for a round 2 of voting are fickle fickle voters of no integrity. They used TJS and TJS used them. They deserve each other.

And the best part, TJS has the unmitigated gall to think that if he didn't stand for election, all his voters would have spoilt their votes. What utter chutzpah! What delusions! What an ego!

He is just trying to assuage his guilt of having help perpetrated a FREAK election result.

TKL has been humbled at the polls and he has accepted defeat with humility. For that, I respect him. And I wish he didn't have to lose his deposit. I don't support him, and I think if he had pulled out, perhaps some of his votes might have gone to TCB. Maybe even enough to make TCB president. But what is done is done.

Place limits on foreign pro runners

Jul 31, 2011

I refer to the article, 'Kenyan bags Shape Run 10k to make it two on the trot' (last Monday), which stated that Kenyan Eunice Muchiri (above) won all four races in Singapore in which she specifically came here for.

As much as she deserves to win, the reality is that a foreign professional runner has deprived worthy locals of a chance to shine, for they can in no way match the times of these professional runners.

It is meaningless to join these races when foreign professional runners arrive here with the sole aim of sweeping the top prizes, and then disappear from the local running scene.

While I understand the need for international events like the Standard Chartered Marathon to attract elite runners, the smaller local events - such as the Great Eastern Women 10K , Jurong Lake Run, Marina 21K Women's Open and Shape Run - are clearly to encourage local participation, so there is no real need to attract these foreign runners.

Organisers of such events should either limit the participation of these professionals - perhaps ruling that they can participate but not win prizes - or have a separate category of prizes for them.

Cindy Tan (Ms)

[To you it's a prize. To those runners it's a living. They are pros. This is what they do to make a living. Don't want to attract them, then the prize money should be reduced. For as long as the money is worth their while, they will come to make a living. Restrict to Singaporeans only? Then the prize will not be very much, and the prestige is not great either. The organisers want international recognition if they can get it.]

Public consultation not a populist measure

Jun 29, 2011

I REFER to last Saturday's report ('Getting all on board in steering S'pore'). The debate on how to resolve policy dilemmas is a tremendously challenging one, primarily because no single decision can please everyone.

[Right. Taxing cigarettes is neutral to most people but makes smokers unhappy. Taxing rich people more makes most people ambivalent or even slightly happy, but unlikely to make rich people happy.]

Socio-economic policy direction and discussion should not be perceived as being mutually exclusive.

[And here you miss the point totally. It's not about direction and discussion. It is about decisions, and the rationale for the decision.]

Policymakers must customise their methodologies based on the characteristics of the concerns, their level of urgency and the groups of Singaporeans involved.

[When the objective criteria should be the nature of the problem, the reasonable options and feasible solutions.]

Clearly, the actual decision-making process should continue to be managed by parliamentarians, who have been given the mandate to do so, and who will ensure that efficiency is not compromised. However, prior to that, they have to proactively solicit feedback from their constituents, so that different perspectives can be taken into consideration.

This particular role of the politician has remained largely unchanged throughout the years, but varying local circumstances - especially after the recent general election - have presented a significantly new landscape for our ministers and MPs.

First, there has been greater diversity in the stakeholders involved. Traditionally, feedback and opinions have been gathered from a select group of professionals - from academics to private-sector experts - through policy study workgroups and various feedback sessions. Now, given the rapid dissemination of information and the better-educated population, more individuals are desirous of having a say through engagement platforms.

[Just because they want to have a say, doesn't mean they have anything meaningful, intelligent, objective, informed or salient to say or add to the discussion. Just read any damn online comments on any news story.]

Second, there has been a rise in the number of platforms and corresponding responses offered by their users. Most notably, communication through the Internet has evolved to become more of a necessity than an option. Even though new media channels per se are not the most productive avenues to articulate public policies, their administrators should have the ability to sieve out constructive criticisms and raise consultation rates.

The trick is to develop a diverse range of feedback forums to cater to different groups of Singaporeans: Facebook pages, spontaneous e-mail messages and blogs would appeal to on-the-go professionals who simply want to give their two cents' worth, while carefully crafted online policy workgroups would attract serious-minded Singaporeans who wish to engage in sustainable conversations, and simultaneously develop recommendations or resolutions to the host of observations.

Public consultation cannot be casually dismissed as being populist appeasement.

[But it is. Two cents worth? Not even that at most time. Most feedback are self-serving at best.]

The proliferation of personal views has gathered pace even in the previous absence of government involvement; it would be a pity if the authorities refuse to acknowledge their value.

Kwan Jin Yao

[Opinions are a dime a dozen and during the GSS, buy 12 get 1200 free.  Most people are uninformed and are unmotivated to be informed beyond where they want to go for lunch and where's the best place to get a good deal on an iphone.  Ask anyone about nuclear power in Singapore and most will say NIMBY.  Politicians need to sell their idea, and more importantly, they need to get the people to buy into their idea. Consultation is one way to get buy-in.  If consultation is to get ideas, we obviously need to get better experts if the hoi polloi can come up with better ideas.]

A uniquely Singapore system based on first come, first served principle

May 29, 2011
 
Your letters

I am irked by people who question our uniquely Singaporean seat reservation system at hawker centres and foodcourts.

[And I am irked by your stupid letter and lack of comprehension.]

These places operate on a first come, first served basis.

[Ya, so I come first, see an empty space, go buy my food, come back and see packets of tissues "choping" the seats by people who came later than me.]

The people who find tissue packs placed on tables to reserve the seats are facing a fact: They have got there later than others. However, these latecomers refuse to accept this fact and, instead, start a flood of discussions and classify this seat-reserving behaviour as an embarrassment.

[So will you give up our tissue-choped seats to someone with a tray of food? Obviously if they have a tray of food, they were here earlier than you. Except that you plonked your tissue on the table first.]

In my experience, this tissue pack reservation system operates only in crowded places where there are insufficient seats available, such as in Shenton Way food centres during peak hours.

I seldom come across the practice in heartland areas like Ang Mo Kio.

I do not know if placing a 'reserved' card issued by the hawker centre will be any more acceptable to people who are against a reservation system. If they disagree with first come, first served as a principle, nothing will make them any happier - be it a card, umbrella, book or even bodies.

The tissue pack system is the cheapest to operate.

[But inherently rude and inefficient. If people got their food then look for their seat, there would be less space waste. As it is you see "empty" tables occupied by tissue packs while people with hot food unable to find a seat wander desperately about. This kiasu, kiaboh mentality is inconsiderate. But you don't see it, cos you are inconsiderate.]

If we decide that a First World country cannot practise such an 'unseemly' system and deem this an embarrassment, let's design one which includes issuing seat numbers and having a crowd manager. Then voila, we have a system resembling a restaurant.

Then my fishball noodles may cost $5 instead of $3.50.

But seriously, people should just live and let live, and let peace prevail.

Lam Wen-li (Ms)

No discounts needed if ministers' pay is set fairly

May 29, 2011
 
Your letters

I refer to last Sunday's report ('Ministerial pay to be reviewed'), which quoted Mr Gerard Ee, the head of a committee to review ministers' salaries, as saying that 'whatever we work out, the final answer must include a substantial discount on comparable salaries in the private sector and people looking at it will say, 'these people are serving and making a sacrifice''.

There is a jewellery shop here known for advertising huge discounts. But it is an open secret that its prices are highly inflated. The discount is only a marketing gimmick.

We do not need discounts if the salaries of ministers are set to fairly reflect the worth of their jobs. It is questionable to peg their salaries to inappropriately high pay, and then reduce these with 'discounts'.

One's pay should be commensurate with the job, and one should be held 100per cent responsible to deliver on it. We should have no qualms paying for performance, not because it is necessary to attract the right people, but because it is fair. What is currently lacking is the penalty when ministers fail to deliver. Ministers should have clearly publicised and closely monitored key performance indicators relevant to their jobs.

[With CEOs of corporations, where the bottom line is clearly profit, you can make such stupid, lame, seemingly intelligent statements with phrases like "pay for performance", "penalty for failure to deliver", "key performance indicators".  What the elections have show is that people want a more consultative government, which is not a KPI or if it were a KPI, would be subject to manipulation. Imagine, relentless consultation with the people and no decision or action. On the other hand imagine quick decisions and action but with complaints of no consultation. How do you balance such demands and reduce it to a KPI? or two contradictory KPIs?]

While the current pay formula already includes gross domestic product growth, it should also incorporate other economic indicators, such as inflation rates, housing price indices, employment figures and median wages of citizens in all income brackets.

These would better correlate the Government's performance, and thus ministers' salaries, with the well-being of the majority, rather than a small minority who benefit the most each year.

With the right salary formula, it will be bizarre to deliberately underpay ministers just so that people can see them as making a sacrifice - this makes a mockery of the meaning of sacrifice.

Chen Junyi

[But that is what the hoi polloi wants. And that is politics.]

Create cheaper class of flats

Peg price to three times median household income but with shorter lease, stricter conditions
May 26, 2011

Letter from Eric Tan Heng Chong

As the new Cabinet gets down to work pledging a fresh look at existing public polices and an innovative approach to policy-making, I would like to offer a proposal to address the Housing and Development Board (HDB) affordability issue.

The HDB should go back to its roots of focusing solely on providing affordable housing for the majority of Singaporeans, instead of the other current objective of asset enhancement of the flats as a financial asset for investment or retirement.

Firstly, we need to define affordability. The Government's definition of affordability is in terms of 30-year loans; a better definition would be in terms of a price that is pegged to three times the annual median household income. This suggests that a housing loan can be paid off within a 10- to 15-year time frame.

For example, a family with a median household income of about S$3,800 per month or S$46,000 per year would be able to afford a four-room apartment if it is priced at $137,000 (three times annual household income).

At this price, they can take a 15-year loan to pay for the flat and the family will be able to save for retirement, children's education and future medical expenses for the remaining 15 years of their working life. Currently, the average four-room HDB flat is priced at five to six times annual household income, which is in excess of about S$265,000, hence the need for 30-year mortgages.

To solve this problem, the HDB could create a new segment of flats similar to what we have done in the car market, where we have normal and off-peak cars.

For this new segment, the HDB could price its flats at three times the median annual household income of applicants but subject these flats to more stringent restrictions to reflect the price difference from normal flats.

These restrictions, which would be in additional to the conditions that apply to normal flats, could include the following: Owners of such flats cannot own private housing at all; no permanent resident can own these flats; no cash-over-valuation is allowed; and a shorter lease of, for example, 60 years.

In addition, owners could be allowed to sell the flat to upgrade but the prices would be set by the HDB, which would index the price increases to median income increases, to ensure the three-times ratio is maintained. The prices would go up if the median household income goes up.

[This measure to restrict the owner to selling the flat at the same price peg at the time of sale less wear and tear and other disamenities (if the owner had not taken care of the building) or with additional value that the seller may have invested is sufficient. So the owner can only sell it to another low income  applicant (pre-approved by HDB), just like a off-peak car must be sold as an off-peak car. No need shorter lease.]

This list of conditions can be expanded further to make it clear that this segment of flats is subsidised by the state for Singaporeans to live in and not intended as a financial investment for their retirement.

In short, Singaporeans would have the choice of buying a HDB flat at either a higher price based on the existing terms; or a lower price subject to more restrictive terms. This may not be the ideal solution but at least it helps to address affordability issues.

URL http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC110526-0000359/Create-cheaper-class-of-flats

[My concern is that these "subsidised flats" will become ghettoes. Because the owner can never expect to profit from property appreciation, he would not have the incentive to maintain the value of the flat. It would become run-down despite the best efforts of HDB and town councils.]

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!]