TR EMERITUS

OPINION The Temasek Review has often been accused of being "anti-PAP" and blatantly biased against it in many of our articles. Others implored us to be more objective, balanced and fair in our coverage and to engage the PAP instead of stirring "hatred" against it. While we admit that our editorial stance has been and will continue to be slanted towards the opposition, we make absolutely no apologies for it. We do not bear any ill-will or malice against the PAP and we do wish to engage it, but the time is not ripe yet. Engagement between two parties is only possible and meaningful if both are on an equal footing. It is impossible to engage the PAP from a position of weakness; we can only do so from a position of strength. Neither is the PAP keen to engage netizens judging from its latest posturing. Anonymous netizens are considered no more than a nuisance, to be avoided, ignored and condemned now and then it sees fit. Unlike Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao who addressed netizens warmly as "friends", Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong only pays lip service to engaging the online community. Just a few days ago, he openly warned of "astroturfing" by netizens to pressure his administration for their own "benefits". Singaporeans are encouraged to use the official feedback forum REACH to "engage" the government and to stay away from the other alternative news sites whose credibility are attacked now and then by the state media. Under the PAP's definition, "engagement" simply means providing a channel for Singaporeans to submit their feedback about their policies and for the policy makers to explain them and to clear up any misconceptions. That's all. Engaging the PAP will not lead to a major overhaul of its policies except for some cosmetic changes to placate disgruntled Singaporeans. Why is this so? For two simple reasons: 1. The PAP holds absolute power in Singapore and the citizenry is literally powerless against it. 2. Party interests always comes first for the PAP before national interest. The wide gulf between the two means that any attempts to seriously engage the PAP is futile because the citizenry is too weak to exert any sort of political pressure or influence on the PAP. On the other hand, the PAP does not see the need to give way to appease Singaporeans because there is little chance of it losing power via the electoral process which is engineered over the years to guarantee and perpetuate its political hegemony. "Engagement" becomes no more but a "wayang" for the PAP to "show" that it is "listening" to the people when it is simply pretending to listen without registering anything inside. To quote PAP Minister Lim Swee Say: "We (PAP) are DEAF to all criticisms!" Singaporeans have been complaining for years at the abuse of the GRC system by the PAP to whisk its new candidates into Parliament without contesting in an election. Even the state media has expressed its reservations on the matter. The chorus of discontent coming from the ground is so deafening that the PAP will not miss it. Whenever Singaporeans tries to "engage" it on this matter, PAP leaders will brush their concerns aside and used the same old lame excuse that the system is needed to guarantee minority representation in Parliament. Similarly, many Singaporeans were aghast and flabbergasted at the loss of billions of dollars of national reserves by GIC last year. Attempts to obtain any official replies from GIC itself were futile as it would give a standard template answer that their investments are for the "long-term". And of course no MP will dare to take the GIC Chairman to task in Parliament when the Finance Minister himself appeared to be equally clueless about the losses as well. When one party holds the cards and calls all the shots, it is impossible to expect any meaningful engagement to take place. The only way to do so is to cut the PAP right down to size and allow the emergence of another center of power in Singapore to challenge it. In a monopolistic market dominated by a single player with no other competitors, customers will have no choice but to be led by their noses on its terms, however unreasonable they are, but once there are other players in the market, the bargaining power of the customers will increase and they will have the power to refuse. Right now, Singaporeans have absolutely no bargaining power at all. No matter how peeved, angry or disgruntled we are, the PAP will still be "voted" into power election after election because the opposition is too feeble to mount a credible challenge to it. In a genuine multi-party democracy, the PAP will not dare to take the electorate for granted. There will be no need for us to "engage" it for it will come crawling to us on bended knees to kiss our feet because it is always in the danger of losing power. Singaporeans should stop harboring false hopes that the PAP will stop to listen and engage them for it will never do anything which will jeopardize its own self interests. The right way to "engage" the PAP is through the ballot box at the next general election. We Singaporeans are the masters of this country and not the PAP leaders who are merely our servants to govern on our behalfs. They are paid by taxpayers' monies and they should be prepared to be booted out of office if we find their performance unsatisfactory. Let us teach the PAP a lesson it will never forget and only then will it bother to engage us on our own terms and at our own tufts.   EDITORS’ NOTE: Please join our Facebook discussion on this article here and invite your friends to do so as well to raise awareness among fellow Singaporeans.  Read More →

I refer to The Straits Times report on 23 Mar 2010 report on MP Ms Penny Low's experiences in running her Punggol North constituency.   She described the disappointment of resident Mr Kevin Tang when his $252,000 five-room flat bought in the late 1990s shrunk by a value of $20,000 in 2001.  He felt heartsick and frustrated that his neighbour bought his flat so much cheaper.  This episode tells us the disturbing effects that HDB price fluctuations have on ordinary citizens.  Even though the price of Mr Tang's flat has shot up to $380,000 today, it doesn't change the fact that his paper gain will always be $20,000 less than his neighbour's.  Looking forward, a new resident who pays $380,000 today for a similar flat close to Mr Tang's will experience a more terrible heartsick because he will be paying $128,000 more than Mr Tang for essentially the same flat.  Mr Tang's $128,000 paper gain will be offset by his new neighbour's $128,000 loss.  The country as a whole gains nothing.  Furthermore, no matter how much Punggol flats continue to appreciate in future, the paper gains by Mr Tang's new neighbour will always be $128,000 less than those of Mr Tang's.   HDB price should not be allowed to fluctuate up and down like the stock market.  It is after all, a basic necessity first and foremost.  Its price should therefore be kept low and stable like the price of rice, water and all other basic necessities in life.     Thank you     Ng Kok Lim  Read More →

I refer to the ST article "Only one in five workers willing to go extra mile" on 26 March 2010 (read more here). This article really put Singaporeans down in the mud to comparing us with the foreign workers. I would think the survey methodology is totally wrong. Singapore are known to have the highest work hours and by saying that, it means most of the employee have their hands full with work, which i believe why most employees are not keen to go the extra mile. The government has always term locals as a mixture of PRs and Singapore in their speech and in the papers. Even so when we questioned the ratio of foreigners and Singaporeans working in RWS. But, this article are specifically pointing fingers to SINGAPOREANS only and i am questioning the purpose of it. What are they trying to prove? Are they trying to say that we, Singaporeans, are no better than foreigners? Or are they responding to why employers prefer to employ foreigners instead of Singapores? Or are they trying to tell us that the PAP made a right decision to bring in foreigners to replace us? Maybe, i would think the answer is all of the above. I am saddened and disappointed to see such article that defame Singaporeans when I clearly understand that this is not the fact.   Thanks, Ryan  Read More →