TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent In an interview with Reuters, Reform Party's Secretary-General Kenneth Jeyaretnam expressed his surprise that no heads were rolled despite the massive losses incurred by GIC and Temasek Holdings during the financial crisis. "It is unusual that we have seen big losses during the financial crisis yet no heads appear to have rolled among senior management," he said. GIC reportedly lost around 59 billion Singapore dollars (US$41.6 billion) in the fiscal year ended March, according to a report by Wall Street Journal last September. It also suffered a paper loss of nearly $10 billion dollars when its stake in Swiss bank UBS was converted to shares last Friday. The disastrous losses have caused some disquiet and unhappiness among Singaporeans who questioned why the Singapore government continues to remain "secretive" on the real extent of the losses. Though GIC and Temasek Holdings like to portray themselves as private investment funds, they do not follow the practice in the private sector where such losses will usually result in wholesale changes in the senior management. Lee Kuan Yew remains the Chairman of GIC while his daughter-in-law Ho Ching heads Temasek Holdings. Lee is a lawyer by training and Ho is an engineer. Kenneth reiterated the privatization of GIC and Temasek Holdings during the interview to allow more transparency. "Obviously if they were privatised and listed on the stock market then they will have to ensure higher standards of disclosure," he added. Kenneth is the elder son of late opposition leader Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam who continues to be held in high regard by many Singaporeans for his dogged determination in fighting for the rights of ordinary Singaporeans in the face of all odds. A hedge fund manager by profession, he graduated with double first-class honors in economics from Cambridge University. Besides privatizing the two sovereign wealth funds, Kenneth also proposed a wider healthcare system to deal with an ageing population. "I don't think Singapore can avoid moving towards some form of universal health insurance. We've got to start treating health as an investment good rather than just a cost or a welfare drain on the economy." The PAP has always eschewed providing more social welfare benefits to Singaporeans out of the perennial fear of creating a "crutch mentality" in the citizenry and yet it can afford to lose billions of dollars of reserves in failed overseas investments without blinking an eyelid. As expected, the Reuters interview conducted on 12 March 2010 was not reported in the mainstream media which has been censoring news about the opposition parties and leaders to create the erroneous public impression that they are inactive and dormant.   Related articles: 1. PAP minister: not realistic for GIC to avoid losses 2. GIC incurs more than$7 billion loss in its UBS investment 3. Straits Times downplay GIC losses 4. GIC may have lost more than $13 billion dollars in its UBS investment on paper 5. GIC’s UBS investment: A chronicle of a disaster in the making 6. GIC’s $14 billion investment in UBS in jeopardy after it faces collapse 7. Dr Tony Tan: GIC in good shape 8. Singapore's GIC suffers $41.6 billion loss  Read More →

By Richard Lu I refer to Miss Chua Mui Hoong’s article ‘No wayang – MPs serve as early warning system’ filed under ‘From the Gallery’ section of the Straits Times of 12 March, 2010.  This article is a shaggy dog story.  In it Miss Chua says “MPs play a valuable role in the political process, often as an early warning system on issues simmering on the ground but not yet on the national radar.” I beg to differ.   ROLE OF MPs IN PARLIAMENT The main functions of Parliament are lawmaking, controlling the nation's finances, and ensuring ministerial accountability.  By and large, it is the cabinet ministers and the public servants who have direct responsibility for drafting new legislation. MPs can influence the Government policy by participating in debates in the House and in the Committees where new legislations are being formulated and thereby contributing both substantively and fine-tuning amendments.  MPs sit in Committees where Government spending is discussed.  They also lobby the ministers.   MPs can also introduce ‘private members bills’. Opposition MPs use Question Time in the House to raise issues of concern and bring them to the attention of the public.   SINGAPORE MPs IN PARLIAMENT MPs are the eyes and the ears of the people.  They are voted into Parliament for this purpose and more.  In Singapore, 82 of the 84 seats in Parliament belong to the PAP.   Because of their overwhelming majority in the House for such a long time - 51 years, the PAP MPs have gone ‘soft’ and lazy and are relatively ineffectual.  One only has to watch a session of a Parliamentary debate on TV to be convinced.  The debates are basically dour and docile affairs presented without much detailed research and barest of details.  MPs cannot articulate and there is a distinct lack of flair, aplomb (lacking self-confidence) and passion.  The ‘cut and thrust’ of debate or ‘off the cuff’ rebuttals and ‘humoring’ of fellow Parliamentarians are largely absent.   Too gentlemanly.   MPs rely heavily on their scripted text and reading.  Their ‘theatrics’ or ‘wayang’ - prepared questions and answers meant to praise or polish the ‘marbles’ of the ministers are too prevalent in these debates. But in the main, the abysmal quality of debates is reflective of the “poor quality” of the MPs’ persona (many having entered the House courtesy of the open “back door”).   Like the quintessential or arch-type Singaporean, these PAP MPs too are afraid to speak up for fear of retribution (or being dropped) and always want someone else to lead.   Hence the “wayang” i.e. questions and answers prepared before hand as evidenced by the scripted text. Maybe it is the “corruption” of the high MP allowances that keeps these PAP MPs in check – the pervasive “don’t rock the boat” and the “better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" attitudes.  In the last session, the PAP MPs raised mundane, unexciting and inconsequential issues like cyclists on the pavements, number of steps on overhead bridges (good God, she can count – and up to 67!) and lifts.  There was even a nonsensical question raised by a doctor MP asking the Minister of Health how he stays looking young.  If this doctor does not know, who would?   Many suspect he was merely “marble” polishing. In the meantime, look at what had happened in Singapore under the MPs’ national radar that had escaped their attention entirely: 1.  PRs buying up HDB flats and prices going up to the detriment of Singaporeans; 2.  Foreigners imported in Singapore in such alarming numbers (3.6 million) and such fast rate; 3.  The fast tracking and making of PRs and citizens; 4.  Demand of private homes hitting the roof and these MPs still do not see the bubble being formed; 5.  Hospitals and hospices are inadequate; 6.  The productivity of the Singaporean workers has dropped and the MPs are not even aware; 7.  Older Singaporeans out of jobs due to cheaper, faster and better foreigners; 8.   The MRT & buses are choked ; 9.   Unsavory behavior of our foreign imports; 10.   Stagnant incomes, lower purchasing power, lower quality of life, etc. The above are just some bread-and-butter issues tugging the heart-strings of Singaporeans that our MPs are so oblivious to.  It was left to the vigilant netizens who relentless pursued and cajoled the Government in their postings and the 2 vs. 82 opposition MPs who championed these concerns and raised them in Parliament.    AN EXAMPLE OF THE PAP MP ROT PAP’s Baey Yam Keng, a ‘back-door’ MP in MM Lee’s GRC, must surely take the cake.  In a ‘Meet The People’ session in his Tanjong Pagar constituency at the end of last month, Mr. Baey promised to raise residents’ concerns in Parliament to ‘change’ government policies.  Doesn’t he know that this is his basic and sacred duty as a MP?  Has he been sleeping all this while?  He did stutter and splutter last week despite reading from a prepared scripted text.  And what of the ‘residents’ concerns’ did this joker raised in Parliament?  Setting up a food museum!  How does MM Lee tolerate such fools?  This Minister Mentor is surely not doing his job!  MM Lee is NOT even mentoring his charges in his own GRC.  Or rather, has he given up as a consequence such low quality inputs?    Where then is the early warning system, Mui Hoong?  And look at what were also debated in Parliament recently: a.   $10 million to help migrants integrate; b.   Migrants need not perform NS or they may not want Singapore citizenships; c.   Migrants to join People’s Association; d.   Foreign workers are necessary for Singapore; e.   HDB flats are affordable; f.   Even Ministers asking Singaporeans to be “more realistic” over HDB flats and being tolerant to foreigners. The old maxim “pay peanuts and get monkeys” is reversed here in the Singapore Parliament. Singaporeans pay TOP DOLLARS for monkey PAP MPs.    FAILURE OF PAP MPs May I ask Miss Chua Mui Hoong how then do these MPs play a valuable role in the political process and more importantly how do they justify their shameless monthly MP allowances?  In 1990, the Nominated Member of Parliament scheme was introduced.   Wong Kan Seng, DPM and Minister for Home Affairs and the then-House Leader, gave a reason for the scheme - the performance of the opposition MPs (there were four at that time) had been disappointing.   But I suspect he too was of the opinion that the PAP MPs were as just as guilty of this fact.   Save for the former PAP backbencher Dr, Tan Cheng Bock and now Mr. Inderjit Singh, most of the other PAP MPs must either be from the mute association or the deaf association.  Some of the NMPs, Siew Kum Hong and Chia Shih Teck in particular provided spirited debates.  But alas, their terms were not extended leading one to enquire if the Government was sincere in wanting diverse views or once again merely paying lip service.  Singaporeans are such simpletons and imbeciles that MPs can be easily milk them for their astronomical MP allowances and Ministerial pay!  It is just taking candies from babies.  And we will vote them in again come next election!   Even Abe Lincoln would have approved of this: “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can fool Singaporeans all of the time.”   JOURNALISM IN SINGAPORE Like Rachel Chang, Miss Chua Mui Hoong too is doing ‘her ‘wayang’ …..... playing the tune for their political master and employer.  Like good pets, they bark or bite when told to do so.  Journalism in Singapore is dead. My recommendation for Rachel, Mui Hoong, Main Stream Media journalists, reporters and presenters, are to embrace these 2 aspects for good journalism – i.e. journalist skills and journalistic principles.  a.   5 journalistic skills – curiosity, sense of adventure, need to share, joy of storytelling and making a difference. b.   5 basic journalistic principles - accuracy, thoroughness, fairness, transparency, and independence. Otherwise quit journalism.   CONCLUSION Parliament is becoming a farce if not an outright "wayang" thanks to these non-performing, ineffectual and lackluster PAP MPs who are there simply as dummies to fill up the empty seats. As PAP’s omnipresent octogenarian “Dear Leader’ Lee Kuan Yew puts it succinctly: “To be the prime minister, you don’t have to know every instrument, but you got to recognise, ah, he’s a good violinist, he’ll be the first violinist, he’ll be the double bass. He will play the viola, he will have the trumpet, he will do the drums. Then you coordinate them and then you have great music. And if you already have a great orchestra, you can put a dummy there and you still got great music.” [Source: Channel News Asia, 5 March 2008] PAP MPs have failed miserably in their responsibilities to speak up for Singaporeans, let alone be an "early warning system." They do not deserve a single cent of the $13,000 monthly MP allowance that taxpayers have been paying. A real "wayang kulit" will be much worthwhile watching than the pathetic "wayang" these PAP MPs put up in Parliament to masequerade Singapore as a "democracy" to the world.   Read also: 10 most unforgettable quotes by PAP MPs in the recent parliamentary debates   Other articles by Richard Lu: 1. Independent judiciary in a liberal democracy 2. Why an independent judiciary is an important part of a liberal democracy 3. Advantages of an open and democratic society  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent The YPAP Facebook Network Group will be closed down on 19 March 2010 as the YPAP "consolidates" its Facebook presence into one interface, said its administrator Alan Soh yesterday: The YPAP Facebook Network Group's membership has stagnated at 857 and its last posted was on 31 December 2009. With its closure, all the discussions will take place at the official YPAP Facebook with over 2,700 members. One of its moderators is Mr Sear Hock Rong, a YPAP leader who was embroiled in a controversy lately over his business dealings with Eunos grassroots organizations where he sits on various commitees. Though the People's Association eventually "absolved" him of any improprieties, the insensitive and callous manner in which he had handled the saga left a sour taste in many netizens. It is not revealed if Mr Sear will be appointed as a moderator of the official YPAP Facebook now that the Network Group is closing down. The YPAP Facebook Network Group was the epic center of an online controversy involving an "Eric How" who posted outrageous remarks about Singaporeans on it in the beginning of the year. Two "Eric Hows" from YPAP had since lodged police reports separated on the advice of its Chairman Teo Ser Luck against them being "impersonated"on Facebook. The police is currently still "investigating" the matter. Despite pouring in an inordinate amount of resources to beef up its online presence, the PAP has failed to establish a sizable presence in cyberspace so far. A blog started by a group of young PAP MPs to engage the online community fizzled out after a while and its official sites continue to perform badly in terms of readership. Even its feedback forum REACH which is constantly being promoted by the mainstream media has a readership of only less than 10 percent that of The Temasek Review. With the New Media posing an increasing challenge to the monopoly on information previously held by the state media, it remains to be seen if it is able to make a genuine impact at the next general election.  Read More →