Reserved Presidential Election is the Right Thing to Do

From ‘Reserved Presidential Election would cost votes but is the right thing to do’: PM Lee, 29 Sep 17, article in CNA

PM Lee Hsien Loong knew that the reserved Presidential Election would be unpopular but went ahead with it, as he strongly believed it was the “right thing to do“, he said in a dialogue session held last Saturday (Sep 23).

“Did I know that this subject would be a difficult one? That it would be unpopular and cost us votes? Yes, I knew,” he said at a People’s Association Kopi Talk held at Ci Yuan Community Club.

“If I do not know that these are sensitive matters, I cannot be in politics. But I did it, because I strongly believe, and still do, that this is the right thing to do.”

Mr Lee acknowledged that there was “some unhappiness” following the reserved election. “I can feel that; you do not have to tell me,” he said.

Three Malay candidates came forward to contest this year’s reserved election. while all of the candidates in the 2011 election were Chinese. Although businessmen Mr Mohamed Salleh Marican and Mr Farid Khan did not qualify, resulting in a walkover, they would not have come forward in an open election, Mr Lee said.

“So why didn’t they come? Because they knew that in an open election – all things being equal – a non-Chinese candidate would have no chance,” he said.

When the Americans dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, they knew it was – to put it mildly – an unpopular decision but to them it was the ‘right thing to do’. When the Nazis embarked on ethnic cleansing and conducted vile experiments on Jews for the advancement of science, they too strongly believed that it was the right thing to do. When Darth Vader ordered the destruction of the planet Alderaan by the Death Star…You get the point.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are no good or evil men in this world, just men with what they believed were ‘right’ intentions. But this is what we’ve come to expect of a dominant party anyway, a smiling Nazi-nanny pushing divisive policies for our own good, and deciding for the nation how multiracialism should be handled, even down to the ‘right-ness’ of the stuff we read on the Internet.

Yet, history has proven, by the PM’s own admission, that HE and his PAP COULD BE WRONG.

In 2011, PM Lee said sorry to the nation, admitting ‘mistakes’ made that included overzealous foreigner intake and problem gambling as a result of the IRs.

‘And if we didn’t quite get it right, I’m sorry but we will try better the next time.’

When the next election comes around, given the ‘political cost’ of this unpopular PE, I wonder if he would apologise again – that they didn’t get it right at all. That they should have trusted the Chinese majority race, that we should have been given the dignity of casting our votes, that the ONE survey that the PAP likes to quote justifying the reserved PE (because Singaporeans, particularly the Chinese, are inherently racist who prefer to vote for a president of the same race), is a flaming pile of horse-shit.

If someone who was NOT from some prestigious institution had come up with a casual survey with the same results, he or she would have been hauled up for sedition and threatening racial harmony.  If someone who’s NOT the PM said stuff like ‘all things being equal, you being non-Chinese would have no chance’, he’d be branded as a straight out racist. The walked over candidates Marican and Khan threw their hat in the ring because they believed they could make a difference, not because they had no Chinese threat to deal with. Implying so is an insult not just to their ability, but to the idea of equality altogether. Also, has anyone wondered why it’s called CIMO and not MCIO or ICOM?

Let’s say I’m hiring a head waiter for a Chinese restaurant. My executive chef is Chinese,  my marketing director is Chinese, even the dishwashers are Chinese. ‘All things being equal’, fluency in Mandarin included, it shouldn’t matter if I hire a non-Chinese to do the job. The only reason I decide to hire MIOs only is because it’s better to have at least one non-Chinese on my team to placate my racist non-Chinese customers.

No sir, it’s not just the right thing to do. It’s the far-right thing to do too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Khaw Boon Wan thinks main media has gone tabloid

From ‘Biased figures on MRT breakdown rate’, 29 July 2017, ST Forum

(Chan Yeow Chuan): I was taken aback by Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan’s statement that the MRT is three times more reliable now than it was in 2015 (Khaw raises bar on MRT reliability; July 28).

However, after a more careful reading of the report, I realised that this conclusion was drawn from statistics that excluded delays caused by the new signalling system on the North-South Line.

Computing statistics this way is biased and unscientific.

I propose that delays caused by the testing of the new signalling system be factored in when calculating the mean kilometres between failures (MKBF).

If there has been a decrease in MKBF since 2015, this can be duly explained by the delays caused by the tests.

Calculating MKBF this way would give us a gauge as to how disruptive the tests of the new signalling system have been.

I support The Straits Times’ coverage of the recent breakdowns and delays of the MRT (Minister takes aim at press; July 28).

If these disruptions remain largely unreported or are glossed over by the newspaper, it could hurt its reputation and relevance as a news source.

Instead of expressing ‘grave concern‘ for the recent spate of breakdowns like his predecessor, Transport Minister Khaw opted for the deflective strategy of sympathising with SMRT workers and taking Trumpy potshots at the MSM.

“I don’t like the media reporting … Even our main media have turned tabloid. Yes, exciting and so on … frightening figures, headlines.”

“But I thought they were being unfair to the teams … working their guts out on this re-signalling project. They think it’s so easy, you know, like holding a pen and writing a few articles and get the signalling done. I wish it was so simple. If it was so simple, they don’t need us. We can ask the reporters to run the train system.”

This is the thanks you get for your not-so-subtle PAP propaganda, ST. All these decades helping to keep the PAP on its Iron Throne with your biased election reporting, and you get accused of distorting the facts. Which explains ST wasting no time publishing letters rebuking Khaw like the one above. At least Lui Tuck Yew knew better than to offend the PAP’s media mouthpiece.

In a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, Khaw himself claimed that MRT reliability , defined as mean km between failure (MKBF), had increased 3 times since 2015, and excluded delays due to re-signalling because these happen ‘once every 30 years’. I assume this 30 years was calculated based on the very first train ride back in 1987, but it’s a statistical fallacy intended to mislead laymen into thinking that we won’t get another issue like this until 2047. Did Khaw learn anything from Yaacob’s ‘once every 50 years’ figure for freak floods?

But perhaps one reason why commuters still think the figures don’t reflect reality is how they experience a typical breakdown. A failure is defined as ‘a delay lasting longer than 5 minutes’, which means a train stalling for 4 minutes 50 seconds will not be considered as a significant delay. To anyone who’s suffered peak hour crunching, this feels like fucking eternity. So technically a train can continue to clock serviceable miles even if it stalls for 2 minutes every 5 stations and SMRT can continue to pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

Media will always be media, and sensationalism with catchy headlines and glaring images is simply business as usual, part of the arms race vs the scourge of fake news and social media. While the quality of our MSM can certainly improve, what we really need, as lifelong commuters, is that the quality of SMRT management and their overseeing Ministers improve as well.

Speaking of ‘exciting’ headlines, always remember this, Khaw.

73856_488305751382_6331328_n

 

 

 

 

Li Shengwu surprised that Government is so petty

From ‘Li Shengwu surprised that Facebook post on Singapore court system enough to trigger AGC response’, 17 July 2017, article in ST

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said on Monday (July 17) it is looking into a recent Facebook post put up by Mr Li Shengwu, the son of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and nephew of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

In a private post, which was uploaded on Saturday, Mr Li, 32, shared a Wall Street Journal article on the recent Oxley Road dispute, titled “Singapore, a model of orderly rule, is jolted by a bitter family feud”.

He also commented on Singapore’s court system.

The AGC said in a brief statement on Monday morning that it is aware of Mr Li’s post and is looking into the matter.

In a Facebook post on Monday afternoon responding to AGC’s statement, Mr Li said he was “somewhat surprised” that his last post – which was shared on “friends only” privacy settings – was enough to trigger a response.

He added: “I’m surprised that the Singapore government is so petty. Would they also like to trawl my private Facebook feed for seditious vacation photos?”

In the offending post, Li Shengwu, a Harvard academic, shared his thoughts on media censorship, as a side note to a linked article summarising he Oxley ‘political crisis’.

Keep in mind, of course, that the Singapore Government is very litigious and has a pliant court system. This constrains what the international media can usually report.

We all also keep in mind, of course, that Shengwu is PM Lee’s nephew, and PM Lee has declared in public that he would not take legal action against another member of the Lee family as it would besmirch LKY’s name. But that wouldn’t stop the AGC from calling this being in ‘contempt of court’.

Or would it?

This could well be a post-Oxley Catch-22. AGC has taken to task people like cartoonist Leslie Chew and rogue political activist Han Hui Hui.  We should expect them to demand that the offender issue a statement of apology, or least remove the post from the face of the earth. But this is – dun-dun-dunnn – PM Lee’s own flesh and blood.

Incidentally, one possible reason why international media tends to be cautious about commentaries on Singapore’s elite is they may get ‘sued until their pants drop’. Which is what both Shengwu’s uncle and – guess who – late grandfather LKY did when they were accused of running a dynasty by the Herald Tribune. Now that alleged dynasty has been dramatically torn apart.

Shengwu is a grown man and doesn’t need daddy to tell him what not to post on Facebook, even if it’s in ‘private’ setting. He’s also been described as ‘Oxford’s finest debater‘, having won Best Speaker at a World Debating Championship. It’s interesting to see how being a world-renown master debater can get you out of a tangle with the all-powerful AGC. I wonder how ‘seditious’ those vacation photos could be, though. Did he pose with kangaroos in Oz with ‘sensitive captions’?

Maybe Dad and Aunt Lee Wei Ling are drafting their Facebook notes as we speak. It’s Game of Thrones week, but save some popcorn for this one.

UPDATE: Lee Wei Ling just described this ‘petty’ incident as a case of ‘Big Brother’ syndrome and suggested that there’s a FB police monitoring the Lee siblings’ posts, even infiltrating privacy settings. It’s more likely attributed to the very nature of social media itself, rather than a Government hack charming his way into Shengwu’s circle of friends.

No doubt her big brother is watching this intently. Like a pesky cockroach that refuses to die.

 

 

 

DAG Hri Kumar ‘hitting below the belt’

From ‘Tan Cheng Bock hits out at Hri Kumar for ‘highly inflammatory comments’ over EP challenge’, 8 July 2017, article by Faris Mokhtar, Today

Former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock has slammed Deputy Attorney-General (AG) Hri Kumar Nair over remarks in the latter’s court submissions against Dr Tan’s legal challenge on the coming reserved Presidential Election, calling them “hitting below the belt” and  “highly inflammatory”.

Dr Tan’s challenge was thrown out by the courts on Friday (July 7), with Mr Nair — who was representing the Attorney-General’s Chambers — describing Dr Tan’s case as “entirely self-serving“, “purely selfish”, and having “no regard for the principle of multiracial representation” 

Writing on Facebook, Dr Tan, who was not present in court when the ruling was delivered in chambers, said Mr Nair had encroached into “dangerous racial politics” with his words.

Dr Tan pointed out that as a public servant and a former People’s Action Party Member of Parliament (MP), Mr Nair “should not have made such a statement”. Mr Nair was a two-term MP who stepped down in 2015, before he was appointed as Deputy AG in March this year.

“This case is not about race. It is about process and procedures. It is about upholding the Constitution. Let’s keep it that way,” said Dr Tan, who is also a former PAP MP.

On the appointment of Hri Kumar as DAG, peers heaped nothing but praise for the ex-PAP MP. Senior Counsel Davinder Singh said he was the ‘best among the best’. The Law Society president describes him as ‘incisive, diligent, fair-minded and yet for all his intellectual rigour, affable to a fault.’ Surely this can’t be someone capable of ‘hitting you below the belt’, a term usually thrown at opposition MPs, or even PAP MPs for that matter?

Blunt personal attacks may be tolerated if you were still an MP, but as a High Court judge, it seems rather unprofessional. It may be called the ‘Chambers’, but surely there is no room for mud-slinging or shit-dredging here.  You can easily be in contempt of court for the slightest insult, but that doesn’t mean the court should treat you with contempt, especially if you’re a past President-elect.

TCB didn’t charge into this fight unarmed of course, having sought advice from Queen’s Counsel lawyer Lord Pannick who opined that Section 22 of the President Elections (Amendment) Act 2017 was unconstitutional. Section 22 is basically a roster of mostly dead presidents and what race they were. It’s strange, though, to say a President ‘belongs’ to a specific community when he, the PRESIDENT, belongs to all peoples, regardless of race, language or religion.  Also, one people, one nation, one Singapore. Never forget.

Screen Shot 2017-07-08 at 7.41.23 AM

To sum up the whole argument, TCB contends that Ong Teng Cheong should be the first elected President. The law says it should be Wee Kim Wee because although he wasn’t elected per se, he acted like one. Hence if you use your fingers to count five terms based on the hiatus-triggered model, the next President should be a long-overdue Malay one. Take that, Lord Pannick! Take that, Her Majesty!

Incidentally, DAG Hri was appointed by President Tony Tan (another ex-PAP man), ‘under the advice’ of PM Lee Hsien Loong.  He joins Lucien Wong  (PM’s previous personal lawyer and now AG) to oversee the laws of the land. The Government has full confidence that their links with the PAP (and ex-boss) has no bearing on their duty to uphold our ‘rule of law’ whatsoever. Why? Because they say so, that’s why. Justice is blind, and so are we.

There’s a scary resonance with the recent Oxley saga here – people quarrelling over dead men’s bodies. In LKY’s case, his residence. In this case, their claim to being an ‘elected president’. We already have one ex-leader coming to haunt us this Seventh Month, let’s not add 2 more ghosts to the list.

 

 

Lee siblings not invited to Lee reunion dinner

From ‘Lee siblings welcome PM’s offer to settle dispute in private’, 6 July 2017, article in Today

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s siblings said on Thursday (July 6) they welcome his offer to manage their disagreement away from the public eye, and they would stop posting on social media “provided that we and our father’s wish are not attacked or misrepresented”.

Two days after the parliamentary debates earlier this week over their allegations that saw 29 Members of Parliament speak about the issues, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling released a seven-page public statement on Facebook putting forth the background to the dispute and their reasons for going public.

…They claimed that PM Lee quarrelled with them on April 12, 2015, the day their father founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s will was read. And he had allegedly not spoken to them since.

They also added that PM Lee was the first to invoke lawyers, a move that “gobsmacked” them since they were “were siblings discussing (their) fathers’ house”.

Shortly after he wrote to them that he had hired Mr Lucien Wong to deal with the situation and asked them for their lawyers, all direct communication ceased. They added that the first Chinese New Year reunion dinner following Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s death, all relatives were invited except them.

The younger Lees may have decided to take their beef with PM Lee offline, but they couldn’t resist one final parting shot, one that exposes the pettiness of our leader. I’m not sure what’s worse, suing your own flesh and blood for defamation, or not inviting them for reunion dinner. If there’s anything Ah Gong and Ah Ma would have wanted, it would be the family getting together at least for Chinese New Year.

LWL/LHY also accused big brother of having two faces – but then again which politician doesn’t? One moment our PM channels a seminal moment in LKY’s march to independence and opens the floodgates in front of national TV, the next we hear of him refusing to speak to his own siblings except through a lawyer. And we continue to trust the same man and all his flaws to steer this ship through stormy waters.

While it looks like this ‘Korean drama’ has reached its uneasy epilogue, with the PM resorting to making a public apology and all, what’s intriguing to me about this saga is not so much the lies, deception, hypocrisy, apple-polishing and political charades, but the choice words coming from the mouths of all dragged into this CIRQUE DU SO-LEE.

Here’s a look back at ‘The Best (words) of Oxley’, and how they can be used in everyday speech:

  1. ORGANS OF STATE
    ‘Do not question the authority of the Government or face the wrath of the organs of state!’
  2. RECUSE
    ‘I recuse myself from this Whatsapp chat group’
  3. DOGSBODY
    ‘I spent the whole weekend doing dogsbody work for my best friend’s wedding’
  4. GOBSMACKED
    ‘Your dad went to Pink Dot? I’m gobsmacked!’
  5. WHITEWASH
    ‘I would have read Men in White if it wasn’t so whitewashed’
  6. ORWELLIAN
    ‘Ownself defend ownself is so Orwellian’
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
    ‘I have shares in Pfizer so I’m not participating in the generic Viagra trial on erectile dysfunction due to conflict of interest’
  8. PARTY WHIP
    ‘Please don’t forget to bring the party whip at the next BDSM teadance’ 
  9. MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE
    ‘Let’s set up a ministerial committee to discuss the terms of reference for ministerial committees’
  10. BESMIRCH
    ‘You besmirch my father’s honour by casting Adrian Pang as him in that movie’

‘For what it’s worth’, I guess what we can take away from this episode is one, the Lee family is human after all, and two, journalists who cover angry exchanges over Facebook have the easiest job in the world. It also sets an awkward precedent for other public figures with relatives dying to expose them but afraid of getting ‘sued still their pants drop’.

May the Lee clan have a peaceful Seventh Month this year.

 

Singapore behaving like a small state

From ‘Minister Shanmugam backs Bilahari’s brilliant response to Kishore’s article on small states’, 2 July 2017, article in CNA

Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam has weighed in on differences about foreign policy ideas between Ambassador-at-Large Bilahari Kausikan and dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Kishore Mahbubani.

In a Facebook post on Sunday (Jul 2), Mr Shanmugam, who used to be Minister for Foreign Affairs, said he found Professor Mahbubani’s piece on foreign policy “questionable, intellectually” and commended Mr Kausikan for a “brilliant response”.

…In his Facebook post commenting on the article, Mr Kausikan took issue with the first lesson mentioned by Professor Mahbubani in his article: “Small states must always behave like small states”.

The Ambassador-at-Large described the statement as “muddled, mendacious and indeed dangerous”.

In Kishore’s original article, he quoted the great Thucydides to back up his ‘eternal rule of geopolitics’ that small states should know their place, specifically – ‘..the strong do what they can, while the weak suffer what they must’. The context for this was the ‘Melian dialogue’, which is basically a powerful nation (Athenians) threatening to annex the island state of Melos (a colony of Sparta). 

Melos resisted initially after attempts to appeal to Athens’ higher sense of morality but were eventually destroyed. But what’s curious about this is not Darwinian logic passing for political truth, but that the passage by Thucydides was ultimately a ‘dramatisation’ of the negotiations between the mismatched states and may not have happened in reality. For anyone else not familiar with Greek wars, using Sparta may not be the best example to justify capitulation as pragmatism and prudence if you’re a little red dot. Because This is fucking Sparta that’s why.

Of course, one can also quote from another ancient text to counter the political law of the jungle. It’s called David and Goliath. It’s even the name of a Malcolm Gladwell bestseller. Times have changed since; we don’t throw spears at each other. We don’t pillage and rape other peoples’ women. We don’t lay siege with catapults and battering rams. These days, for one small country to bring a bigger one to its knees you don’t need a physical army. You just need one really brilliant hacker, or a megalomaniac on a small deserted island with a doomsday machine.

Or maybe just one Lee Kuan Yew. Here’s another passage from Kishore’s article, which suggests that our current leadership can no longer stand toe to toe with the powers that be.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew never acted as a leader of a small state. He would comment openly and liberally on great powers, including America and Russia, China and India. However, he had earned the right to do so because the great powers treated him with great respect as a global statesman. We are now in the post-Lee Kuan Yew era. Sadly, we will probably never again have another globally respected statesman like Mr Lee. As a result, we should change our behaviour significantly.

Owwwch. Once a barking terrier in a big arena, now a puppy cowering in the corner with its tail between its legs. Or in Bilahari’s exact words – a tame poodle.

What’s a small state to do? According to Kishore, the key is ‘exercising discretion’. Every small state is small in its own way, big in others, and I would like him to cite an example of the WIMPY KID of small states, the one that sneaks out of the back door when the house burns to the ground. The state that exemplifies the saying ‘discretion is the better part of valour’.

Maybe the real takeaway from his piece is that Singapore should not overstep its boundaries and refrain from interfering with bigger shit beyond us. He used the South China Sea as an example, but at the same time advocated that statelings like ours should adopt a ‘Machiaveillian’ approach in order to survive, a philosophy straight out of the LKY/Goh Keng Swee/Rajaratnam school of thought. You could say ‘Machiaveillian’ is how LKY treated his political rivals, pushed through his population policies, or how he wanted the Oxley Road house handled after his death (But that’s for a certain Parliamentary debate to mull over). A small Machiavelli is pretty much how I would describe Tyrion Lannister from Game of Thrones.

The Terrex incident is still fresh in our minds, with China being the perennial big brother trying to bully little Singapore out of the last piece of candy. Bilahari and Shanmugam preferred to view the commentary not as a reality check, but one that downplays Singapore’s prowess in the international stage, where we’re traditionally seen as ‘no pushovers’ despite our size. We do what we think is right despite global pressure or mockery. We didn’t give in to the US when Michael Fay was caned for vandalism. We didn’t give a fuck when we banned the import of chewing gum. We also hate the word ‘Syonan’ because WE ARE SINGAPORE, dammit!

An article which hints at selectively kowtowing to greater powers being the best policy may be construed as a slap in the face of the Singapore that Lee Kuan Yew built, a small nation with big-ass balls, but with the side effect of becoming a nation still struggling to move on from the former elder statesman’s influence, to the point that quarrels over his private knick-knacks have become a matter of intense national interest.

Kishore closed the ‘small states’ discussion with an analogy from the animal kingdom.

In the jungle, no small animal would stand in front of a charging elephant, no matter who has the right of way, so long as the elephant is not charging over the small animal’s home territory.

Well, not if we’re a mouse though.

 

 

Lee family Oxley saga a ‘petty dispute’

From ‘Singapore will not be dragged down by Lee family’s ‘petty disputes’, says Goh Chok Tong’, 17 June 2017, Today

Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong on Friday (June 16) weighed in on the Lee family spat over 38 Oxley Road, by urging Singaporeans to “not be dragged down by a family’s petty disputes”.

Writing on Facebook, Mr Goh noted that Singapore has “prevailed through crises and adversity”. “We are a hardy people, built our family and nation from humble beginnings,” he wrote.

Mr Goh succeeded founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in 1990 and handed over the baton to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2004. He added: “What is happening in public between Lee Kuan Yew’s children is not us and should not be allowed to define who we are. We are bigger than our troubles, stronger than our differences. Whatever damage Singapore may suffer, willfully inflicted or otherwise, I know Singaporeans will not lay meek… We will always look forward, to fight real battles and create a better future for ourselves and our children.”

Yes, most Singaporeans we know have humble beginnings – relative to the Lees, that is. We don’t have an army of lawyers to draft our public statements. We can’t afford to have a sister-in-law or cousin to draft a high-profile will for a dying strongman father. Our kids can grow up to do their own thing without getting dragged through the mud by our aunties and uncles with claims that Dad has political ambitions for them. The only holiday we know is the one where you can chill in peace without someone Facebook posting viral shit about you at 3 am in the morning.

To most of us, a petty family dispute is when second brother forgets to message that he’s eating dinner, Mom overcooks and Dad complains why the fish was steamed instead of being deep fried, while youngest sister threatens to walk out of the house because second brother gets to iPad while she doesn’t. To our overlords, it involves National Heritage, personal integrity on a much grander scale, sung to the tune to $24 million dollars. And in the case of a a certain Lee couple, being forced to leave the country in fear of ‘state organs’. It also gives Chinese microbloggers a chance to laugh at us.

Yes, it’s an ugly state of affairs which may or may not have an impact on our everyday lives. Government will remain Government, as darkly Orwellian as the PM’s estranged brother believes it to be. Lee Wei Ling will continue to bitch about her brother being a ‘dishonourable’ son. Eventually, whether or not a certain Demolition clause is enacted, the Oxley house and all the lawyers behind it will go to dust, just as the Lees along with all of us, this land, this country, would fade into nothing, leaving a mere insignificant blip in this vast cosmic eternity that is bigger than any of us, including LKY, could ever imagine.