Singapore is more than ready to accept a minority race PM

 

Dear Friends,

 

In a recent forum at NTU attended by more than 700 students, Minister Heng Swee Keat tried to convince Singaporeans why we are not ready for a non-Chinese PM. To many observers, this is just another way of enunciating why the popular DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam was not considered acceptable as a potential PM after PM Lee Hsien Loong steps down.

In reply to a question from Assistant Professor Walid Abdullah Minister Heng explained that based on his own observation,  older Singaporeans would not accept a minority race PM. This acceptance of anecdotal evidence is uncharacteristic for someone trained as an economist.  

This pronouncement is problematic and does not stand to scrutiny in many ways:  

1. During GE 2015 Jurong GRC helmed by DPM Tharman won a thumping 79.28% of the votes. This is the highest vote count and even beats PM Lee's Ang Mo Kio GRC which was a close second at 78.6%.

2. PAP's Murali Pillai, in the Bukit Batok by-election ( May 2016), won by a vote count of 61.21% to SDP leader Chee Soon Juan’s 38.79%.

3.In a 2016 Yahoo poll, 70% of Singaporeans preferred Tharman to be the next PM ; much higher than the next choice who got 25%.

4.Assuming Minister Heng is correct that above 65 year old Singaporeans are not ready for a non-Chinese PM (this is not confirmed), why do we have to pander to the misguided racist views of this minority , who according to Statistics Singapore comprise  about 16% of the population ie 548000 out of 3.47 million Singaporeans  (link here: https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/population/population-and-population-structure/latest-data )?  This is esply as Minister Heng had confirmed for himself that the majority in the NTU audience were more than ready for a minority leader.

I am saddened that instead of showing moral courage , for reasons known only to itself, the government has chosen to repeat unsubstantiated observations to deny Singaporeans the service of an eminently qualified Singaporean in DPM Tharman at the highest level in government.

This seriously undermines our confidence in the leadership and make many skeptical that the part in our National Pledge that says "pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion" are just words for school children to parrot day after day.

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

SMC must act fast to stem the loss of confidence in self-regulation process

MOH must help stem loss of confidence in SMC self-regulatory process

In more than 35 years as a doctor in Singapore, I have never felt more despondent as now and I am certainly not alone in losing confidence in how self-regulation is administered by our Singapore Medical Council (SMC).

Three recent SMC cases have shocked doctors namely :

1. " Kawasaki" case (2017) when pediatrician Dr Chia Foong Lian was suspended for 3 months for missing a difficult diagnosis;

2.  "Steroid" Injection case(2019) when orthopedic surgeon Dr Lim Lian Arn was fined $100,000 for failing to tell his patient the wrist injection could have side-effects such as discolouration of the skin and

3.  " Medical Confidentiality "case ( 2019) when psychiatrist Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang was fined $50000 for writing a memo to the ambulance service/ police to get an alleged "suicidal" patient admitted to Institute of Mental Health. He was found guilty of breaching medical confidentiality.

There was an unprecedented petition drive by a hitherto conservative medical professionals who then signed 3 petitions consisting of 1000, then 6400 and 8400 signatures respectively.

Let me make it clear. The doctors I know who signed the petitions are serious minded people who do not put ink to paper lightly as their professional reputations are at stake!

MOH forms a workgroup in March 2019 to  “review the taking of informed consent and SMC disciplinary process”.

How MOH Workgroup can help Singapore Healthcare

To the workgroup, I quote Stephen Covey and say,

“Let’s start with the end in mind.”

How do I want Medicine to be practised in Singapore?

1. In good faith, I will use all my skills and knowledge to help every patient.  Many diagnoses may initially remain elusive but this is not necessarily negligence.

2. Many treatments/medications have known complications that are often unavoidable. I may not have the time to explain every one of these complications nor do I feel that I have to. Many of these are minor. Eg Cancers

3. Patients are often treated as part of a family unit and I have always shared relevant knowledge with their loved ones for them to make collective decisions. Eg Elderly parents

4. Our courts have reiterated that the Bolam-Bolitho test is relevant as a measure of a doctor’s action during Diagnosis and Treatment ( eg Surgery) . Briefly, this test says that if the doctor's action is supported by a responsible body of medical opinion and is logical, he is not guilty of negligence.

5. I personally feel that the Modified Montgomery Test is the reason for increased healthcare cost and defensive medicine and should be severely curtailed notwithstanding the learned judges’ views. ( NB Court of Appeal says MM Test should be used for “Advising” patients)

I wish to fulfil my dream of being a good doctor.Please help me!

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

Surgical Fee guidelines a good job half done

Hi all,

The letter below was published in the Forum page of the Straits Times (23.11.2018)

Dear Editor, 

The recently published fee guidelines for more than 200 common surgical procedures by private surgeons in Singapore could not have come a day sooner (Opting for private surgeon? See fee guidelines; Nov 14).

Many, even specialists in the private sector, have felt that recent price trends have not been sustainable and that Singapore is beginning to lose its competitive edge in this area to neighbouring countries.

Whether regional patients return to our shores in substantial numbers remains to be seen, but the latest move can only be good if we are serious about Singapore being a centre of medical excellence - a mantra seldom mentioned nowadays.

However, the surgeon's fee is but only a portion of the patient's total hospital bill. How does knowing only this portion allow for realistic financial planning for any patient coming into our private hospitals?

Why leave this task half done? Surely private hospitals have a critical role to play in this journey towards an excellent yet sustainable Singapore healthcare.

To this end, I propose the following:

For the most common surgical procedures - for example, the top 10 procedures of each speciality - the Health Ministry should require all major private hospitals to have all-encompassing fixed-fee packages.

This will introduce real competition and offer real choices for patients and payers (employers and insurers).

With the surgeon's fee kept at reasonable levels by the recent fee benchmarks and the hospitals' fixed-fee packages, patients and their families can be confident of avoiding shocks on the day of discharge, barring unexpected complications or transfers to intensive care units.

Other components of the total fee - for instance, an anaesthetist's fee - are usually predictable as a percentage of the surgical fees.

Only if this is achieved and uncertainty alleviated will Singapore's private healthcare truly be able to enlarge the pie and be ready to compete with our fast-improving regional competitors.

We may just be able to make it, but time is of the essence.

Huang Shoou Chyuan (Dr)

Silly hope that ST will not be like China Daily, Pravda or KCNA.

Yesterday was the last time I will be reading from a subscribed Singapore newspaper.

No right thinking person will read the China Daily expecting anything other than partial news that support the official line of the Chinese government. Ditto for Pravda ( Russian Federation) or KCNA ( North Korea).

The only reason we will feel angry when our only English newspaper appears biased and partisan towards the government ( which incidentally owns it in a not too complex shareholding structure) is that deep down somewhere in our hearts ( or brains) is that we thought that somehow the Journalists could be allowed to act and write as professional fair-minded Singaporeans (or maybe PRs).

I ( now I am getting personal) thought, naively now its clear, that the senior people that run the Straits Times ( now I have named the paper) have a conscience to do what is right for us. That they cannot be so blatantly biased or else I and others will get disgusted and not read their paper anymore. Well I was wrong and they were right.

They could and were and will be blatant and yet people like me , till yesterday, would buy and read with a glimmer of hope that is totally unwarranted. Hope that they will do the right thing. It wont happen anytime soon.

I have unsubscribed to the Straits Times. In investment terms we call this “cutting loss”.

Writing to the Forum Page ( and why I write) is also a rather unusual thought process. That is the subject of another post.

We live in difficult but exciting times.

Best wishes

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

Referendum for 377A repeal

Dear Friends,

We are told that repeal of Section 377A of the Penal code has the potential to divide Singapore and split us into 2 irreconcilable camps.

However keeping it unchanged is deemed a violation of the rights of a not insignificant percentage of Singaporeans. Repealing it, unfortunately, would offend conservative citizens who claim guidance from their ancient scriptures.

It was not too long ago when women could not vote and humans of colour had to make themselves invisible and use separate toilets, buses and their children attend inferior schools all in the name of these same conservative values.

These societal crossroads are now in the distant past.

And yet we are told and many believe that Singaporeans are mainly conservative and demand that the 377A remains on the legal statutes.

Is this even true? Has there been any real poll to confirm this?

Or is this potentially fake news?

There is one simple way to know if Singaporeans want to retain 377A as it is.

I suggest that the Singapore government carries out a referendum or plebiscite to  decide what Singaporeans want to do about 377A. This should be a non-binding vote carried out according to similar rules familiar to the Department of Elections ( eg compulsory etc) .

If the vote for pro-repeal wins or is close eg less than 10% difference then Parliament would be deemed to have the moral duty to do more than sit on its hands ( and tweedle its thumbs) and should start work on amending or repealing 377A.

However, it the vote is decisively  for retention, then the repeal camp must agree not to have any referendum till at least 10 years later. This allows the government of the day to carry out its mandate for the majority without upsetting the status quo..

If the government is not ready to take this risk, then a respectable NGO, or even the Workers’ Party ( which has been neutral on this) can take up the mettle on Singapore’s behalf.

I know there will some who argue against this as an example of “Ruling by Referendum” but don’t Singaporeans want to know how middle Singapore feels about this? I sure do!

Best wishes

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

Amended letter published in Straits Times Forum

Is this what Mediocrity looks like?

Dear friends,

The recent debate about Minister’s pay and mediocrity ( ref GCT speech https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2018/08/05/goh-chok-tongs-speech-defending-high-ministerial-pay-and-defence-budget-at-grassroots-event/)  has made me realise that our present social political system, if not tweaked, could have drastic consequences.

1.About National Day songs
We have not had any new songs for our National Day celebrations for the longest time. The songs of old like Dick Lee’s “Home” or Hugh Harrison's  “Stand up for Singapore" were memorable and iconic but why are new songs from new songwriters deemed not deserving of an airing on the national stage on our National Days? Is there a defeatist attitude by the organising committee who is  afraid that any new songs will not stand up to public scrutiny. When will this change?

2.About Microsoft and competition
Does anyone remember when Microsoft was a near monopoly and regulators were trying to make the playing field fairer? I was amongst many who were saying that  “Microsoft Office Suite” was already so good and affordable, why should we not it monopoly power? But after the regulators had done their jobs we were pleasantly surprised with a plethora of applications and software  eg Linux Open Office / Google etc, which were more innovative providing better communications for all.

3.About Grab and free market
If our regulators eg LTA was short sighted and disallowed “Grab” from entering the market, we would still be complaining about misbehaving taxi drivers instead of enjoying benefits of private rental cars . Of course, not everything is easy to control eg bicycle rental schemes. Frequent tweakings are often needed.

4. About Salaries and motivation
Has high salaries of public officials ( including politicians) ring fenced and allowed them to innovate, avoiding short term criticisms or has it ironically make such remuneration. an “iron rice bowl” so coveted that these talented officials will ( perhaps subconsciously) do what is safe to avoid perceptions of failure ?

Is this what Mediocrity looks like?

Cheers,

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

Urgent solutions needed to rental bike problems

Dear Friends,

Straits Times Forum printed an edited version of this letter. Click here.

Dear Editor,

In urban planning “last mile” refers to the difficult problem of getting commuters from a transportation hub eg MRT station to their final destination eg home. “First mile” would be from starting location to the hub.

The Last Mile Connectivity is the “Holy Grail” that town planners, including  ours, aspire towards.

Bike sharing schemes fronted by 5 companies  namely GBikes, Mobike, oBike, ofo and  SG Bike,  - which have more than 30,000 bikes between them, could be a positive disruptive influence  by improving public transport accessibility leading to a more “car-lite” Singapore.

However, complaints are heard more than accolades.Why?

These complaints include how our  reputation of our “city within a garden”  has been tarnished by these haphazardly parked bikes found in even odd places eg road dividers or in flower beds.

Bikes also pose dangers by blocking walkways and emergency exits .

Andrew Delios from NUS Business School had alluded to  economic concepts of “negative externalities”  and “free-riding”. ( Bike-sharing: Time to crack down on free-riding? Straits Times 18 Oct 2017)

“Negative externalities” are hidden costs not borne by company owners but passed to others, namely Singapore tax payers, who not only bears with the eyesore where previously was pristine environment, he  now has to skirt around or move aside fallen bikes. It could be said that our red passport is diminishing in value.

“Free riding” concept is when rich owners ( eg Ofo‘s young billionaire CEO Dai Wei ) are taking advantage of a public good (eg parking space) without paying for it. Some countries insist docking stations be built at costs of millions.

I propose the following:

1. Users who do not park at geo-fenced areas lose their deposits. Losing credits ( Mobike) is not deterrent enough.“No deposit” (Ofo) promotion not be allowed.

     2.“ Free first 15 minute” promotions (Mobike) not be allowed.  Bikes marooned on road dividers could be by riders who had run out of “free” time.

      3. Total number of bikes from each company be limited in each region and rebalancing of bikes assiduously done when they “bunch” in places.

4. Enough  geo-fenced lots  eg HDB void decks , outside condos and around private estates apart from transport hubs. Bike companies bear full cost of works.

Singapore is already very accessible and to walk few hundred metres is actually healthy.

To expect full door to hub connectivity is a tad too much.

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme: Changes needed

 

Dear Friends,

Now that the dust has started to settle after the dramatic GE2015, I have some thoughts on how the Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme can be improved to better reflect the aspirations of the electorate.

Click link here.

I do not think many will disagree that there is still a desire by the electorate for diversity of views in the parliament notwithstanding the convincing win by the ruling PAP.

To help ingrain the NCMP scheme so that it is not just perceived as a token to satisfy the wish of a segment of the electorate who clamour for multi-party democracy (ie to add legitimacy), I propose the following:

1. NCMP’s should be allowed to vote on all matters including the following which they are presently denied :

Amendments to the Constitution.

Any motion pertaining to a bill to amend a supply bill, supplementary supply bill or final supply bill.

Any motion pertaining to a Bill to amend a money bill.

However in my opinion,the present last two exceptions of voting on motions of no confidence in the Government and removal of the President from office should still remain.

      2. As NCMP’s will now have full legislative duties and only differ from other MP’s by not having a community role (they do not have constituents to look after), their remuneration should be raised from the present 15% of a MP’s allowance ( which is rather derisory)  to at least 50%. (Note: Present annual allowances of NCMP  & MP are $28,900 and $192,500 respectively). They should have similar perks including funds to employ legislative assistants etc.  

       3. NCMP scheme might also be expanded to include not just opposition party MP’s but also ruling party MP’s. For example if up 18 seats are allocated for opposition party MP’s and NCMP’s (present parliament has 9 allocated seats) and opposition MP’s only won 12 seats outright by “First Past the Post” method, the next 6 highest candidates ( from any party) will be allocated NCMP seats. The house will benefit from the contributions of good quality NCMP’s from either side of the political aisle.

        4. Office-bearers should be allowed to be selected from NCMP’s hence giving more choice for the government of the day.

   

        5. All NCMP positions must be filled and not left vacant as the present scheme already ensures a minimum standard in that the present NCMP-elects must have garnered at least 15% of the total number of votes

With these improvements, Singaporeans will benefit from the contributions of NCMP’s in the current term of parliament and furthermore , the electorate can decide if they also want these NCMP’s to play a community role as their MP’s come the next General Election

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

AHPETC: TC statistics show WP can run TC's #ge2015 #sgpolitics

Hi Friends,

LTK playing "victim" again?

Straits Times Editor-at-large Han Fook Kwong likens this weekend as Half-time in GE2015 football match and that at 0-0, 

“ It is unlikely any party can come up with a brilliant move that will change the course of the GE….  it may be more important not to score an own goal by making a mistake or a misstep..”

To most of us, what is infinitely worse than losing by an own goal is when the match is won by a dubious goal eg Maradona’s Hand of God

Other non-football analogy is winning election by dirty tricks eg Taiwan 2004 when Taiwan’s DPP incumbent Presidential candidate Chen Shui Bian won by sympathy votes after a widely believed to be a staged assassination attempt (3-19 incident ).

Let me state here and now that I believe all our past elections were clean and won/lost fairly and squarely.

Going back to football analogy, in Singapore it is widely acknowledged that the MSM had played a role ( many believed unfairly) in the past. But this could be changing ( see my previous post)

However another force is counter-balancing MSM and that is new media (bloggers, blog aggregators) and to this end I like to refer to one blog post that could essentially be the deciding goal (game changer?) for the WP-PAP faceoff in the East. 

Article:http://johnislam.blogspot.sg/2015/09/on-which-town-council-was-managed-most.html

 On Which Town Council Was Managed the Most Wisely

The above is an excellent article which collated the Income Statements from all the Town Councils for the Financial Years 2012/2013 & 2013/2014 to compare 4 vital aspects of TC management and how AHPETC ( Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council) compares with the other PAP-controlled town councils.

1) Conservancy & Service Fees

In 2013, AHPETC was the second "cheapest" town and it was ranked 11th most expensive (out of 15 Town Councils) in 2014.

2) Total Operating Expenditure

In 2013, AHPETC was the second most penny pinching town and it was ranked 10th in spending per electorate in 2014.

3) Government Grants

The Town Council which received the most "government support" in 2013 was Ang Moh Kio TC which comprises of Ang Moh Kio GRC and Seng Kang West SMC, while AHPETC placed last.

In 2014, The top place went to Tanjong Pagar TC which comprises of Tanjong Pagar GRC and Radin Mas SMC. AHPETC was placed 13th.In this sense, AHPETC has received less support from the government per electorate than most Town Councils.

4) Operating Deficit

In 2013, AHPETC was placed 10th. It incurred less deficit than 5 other TCs and is among the top 67th percentile in terms of deficit management. However, in 2014, AHPETC was placed last. There was a $9 increase deficit per voter from 2013 to 2014.

The author Lam said:

“ In conclusion, AHPETC experienced marked increase in operating expenditure in 2014. However, AHPETC performs above the average Town Council in terms of tax burden and operating expenditure per electorate. Furthermore, AHPETC is among the bottom 20% or the lowest in terms of support from the Government through Government Grants.”

In a nutshell, to family member “A” and many like her who were very perturbed by what they heard from the PAP leaders that WP cannot be trusted as their TC management was in shambles, this article will help to clear this doubt out of the way and they can assess the parties on other criteria.

What about the latest accusations about the presence of surpluses or deficits of Hougang & Punggol East respectively when the 2 SMC’s were merged into Aljunied TC, I believe the WP could have been mistaken about Punggol East and they were premature to accuse PAP of “creative attitude towards the truth”  ( quoting Kenneth Jeyaratnam (KJ) referring to Han Hui Hui (H3)  and hence owes PAP either a retraction, apology or some explanation. See PAP rebuttal here 

On the other hand, PAP also owes WP a retraction about Hougang’s deficit. See here  So no win no lose.

So like the time in the playground 50 years ago when I quarreled with a kampong friend, let’s leave it at : 

"No, You say sorry first! Howzat?"

Remember, we are all Singaporeans and we try so hard to win because we love Singapore!

Cheers,

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

PAP and MSM no longer on the same page? MSM loosens shackles? #ge2015 #sgpolitics

 

Hi Friends,

1. AHPETC- it goes on ad nauseum and I continue to puke

The #GE2015 is in full swing and like the rest of the Singapore I cannot escape from hearing about the AHPETC ( Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council) saga. The 6 letters A.H.P.E.T.C haunt all of us to no end!

I will not bore you with the details but it is essentially a “he say… but she say.. and then he say.. she say etc.”sort of scenario.  Yawn! I think you get the picture. It is a stalemate mate!

Can I give the PAP a piece of advice- stop harping on it already! If you think the WP MP’s are all a bunch of crooks, please round them up and send them to jail already!

Saying that we should set higher standards ( than who? You?- you are kidding right?) than just not going to jail ( said LHL/KBW/S), or that it should not just be meeting the letter of the law but also the spirit of it ( NEH), is a bit hard to swallow, esply coming from the PAP, which is not exactly a role model ( to say the least).

I can’t think straight now, but off hand, PAP had Op Coldstore; Op Spectrum; YOG;  Brompton; Withdrawal of services from Hougang/PP / AIM/ AGO on PA etc.

Is there double standards? What do you think?

So besides believing the PAP (swallowing the bait, hook and sinker)  , that the PAP’s hearts are pure and virtuous, we are to believe that the WP’s are black and dirty?

What was mentioned by PAP and conversely by WP could plausibly be true ( depends on whom you speak to) … Now it just boils down to …

Either you believe it or not!

A favourite author of mine Murakami said in 1Q84 :

“If you can't understand it without an explanation, you can't understand it with an explanation.”

Or like Gerald Giam ( WP Candidate for East Coast GRC) said :   

“And just because the PAP does not want to accept our explanations does not mean we haven't explained”

2.PAP has done this before but why does it not work this time?

PAP has done this before in previous GE’s ( no surprise) eg James Gomez; JBJ; Tang  etc

But why is it different this time round compared to previous GE’s?  The MSM ( Maintream Media) or traditional media eg ST/Mediacorp etc is not having anymore of the status quo… The press wants freedom and democracy as much as the next guy? Is it possible?

I spoke to a SPH journalist and said that

The **** ( name of the newspaper) seem to be fairer to all sides this GE? . The journalist ( the sex hidden to hide the identity) said that in this day and age of the new media, **** has no choice. Readers will read from other sources ( or watch other video channels) if they deemed MSM being PAP’s mouthpiece.

BTW-Straits Times started as being anti-PAP!

Some one chided me that I should not praise journalists for just doing what they are supposed to?

But I am a hopeless optimist (naïve you say?)  and I feel that with the encouragement of the people and competition from new media, MSM eg Straits Times, LHZB , Mediacorp etc can step up to the plate and play its roles as the “Fourth Estate”

3. Singapore’s MSM is now our Fourth Estate? (don't laugh)

The “Fourth Estate’s” coinage has been attributed to Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797), a British politician. It comes from a quote in Thomas Carlyle's book, "Heros and Hero Worship in History" (1841).

"Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth Estate more important far than they all."

The three estates in the above quote referred to the British parliament,( the Lords Temporal, the Lords Spiritual and the Commons). The Lords Temporal and the Lords Spiritual combined being The House of Lords, the upper House of parliament. And the Commons is The House of Commons or the British lower House.

Am I naïve and will time prove that the MSM has a last trick up its sleeve and is just lulling me into a false sense of security and then pulling a fast one just before 9-11?

4.… but just in case I am wrong

Then I say, on Cooling off day (Sept 10)- do not watch or read any Singapore originated newspaper nor listen/watch any Mediacorp news broadcast.

Do we have to be do cynical?

May the best candidates win! Majullah Singapura!

Let's celebrate or mourn whatever the results may be and live and fight another day!

Oh.. don't forget we are all Singaporeans and we are doing this because we all love Singapore!

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

Horse-trading and other fleshy image(rie)s : Pre-GE2015 #WWNW #butilovesingaporemore

Dear Friends,

This is the start of a long weekend where there is nothing to see nor do! Sigh!

"Horse-trading" 

The term “Horse-trading” used universally for events (almost always just before impending elections) when political parties come together to carve out territories that they are set on contesting. This immediately connotes an image of butchers carving out meat or worse of hyenas circling carcasses of animals before they lunge forward to grab pieces for themselves. All this imagery is very unfortunate as politics is serious business where all who were gathered only have the goodwill of the nation on their minds.

Hence, that being the case, my humble opinion is that all serious minded parties (and the 2 that most come to mind are the WP and SDP.  SingaporeFirst is really promising and I really wish SPP well) should really stop this “ thingy”.

WP and SDP are serious parties who really want to achieve something for the good of Singapore. If their mission is that their path towards Singapore attaining true mature democracy include winning ‘blah blah” constituencies during the GE ( which , may I remind you, only comes once half-decadely ) why should their plans be modified to accommodate some other party. I am by nature a very nice guy, who seldom pour cold water or be wet blanket ( or be slimeball ) etc.

I do not like to disparage any Singaporeans who are in opposition politics as this is already courage in itself. So if those other guys do not get the message already and come out GE after GE to try to win back their deposits,  then do they not deserve to get 3- or even 4 cornered!.  ( A really uncanny imagery comes to mind of someone who puts a 100 bucks on a bench and goes walkabout , then comes back 10 minutes later to see if it is still there). Phew! Lucky I got back my 100 bucks or damned it- some thief stole my money . Boo hoo hoo!  They try again 5 years later! Come on already!

In most mature countries (ok- some will argue that we are anything but this), each ward is contested by all the major parties. In the UK, we do not expect the Lib Dem to horse trade with Labour to rob the Tories of a win? Heck (I mean, well), the Greens are there , as are eccentrics like Looney Tune Party ( or whatever). Hence when the time is right (either due to economy cycle or strong leadership or even Falklands war etc), parties win or lose and the people's wishes are heard and the nation moves on. 

This come-together of strange bed-fellows (to me) is only defensible in tyrannical regimes , eg Syria or Nazi Germany , where your enemy’s enemy is your friend and your only aim is the overthrow of the despot and after that all bets are off? Are we there already? Look at Libya and Iraq… overthrow the tyrant, then what?

How did the PAP go from an opposition party to the ruling party it is today ( some say,  they played dirty and were ruthless etc) ? Did they go from GE to GE giving way to other parties each time? 

We need serious political parties who seriously have a serious plan: 

We need serious parties to become credible parties with fire in their bellies to be ready to rule at a moment’s notice. We need alternative policies ( not good enough to say, we like PAP policy but we will be better…). We need parties to come out of shadows and to have Shadow ministers for all portfolios so that Singaporeans can know where they stand on issues like economy, education, taxation, foreign affairs, ISD, press freedom, right to protest etc.

She is not Nicole! NS would not dress like this at this event! Duh! WWNW

On a more serious note, it has come to my notice that there is a comparison between Nicole Seah and a young lady named Kevryn. This is unfair… for Nicole. Nicole ( and to some her mother too, ) will forever remain etched in our collective memory of what we want from a young Singaporean. Articulate without being show-offish, glam without being crass. Gorgeous without needing to shorten her skirt! We really miss Nicole. Join PAP or whoever you want. Singapore needs you!

Kevryn Lim, on the other hand…

Most understand that many young people model ( for money or for any other reason that slips my mind now), and these Singaporeans may still rightly aspire to be our future leaders. But to turn up for a political event in an unparliamentary outfit , full knowing the presence of the press, is ( almost) political suicide. No need Long sleeve or cover ankle... just think WWNW ( What Would Nicole Wear?) 

Perhaps it’s just me, or it is also true to my very few readers who are (is) still reading this, that political parties always try to be politically correct ( which I actually think is so passé ) ? Someone from my daily coffee club says that actually what Kavryn wore was not revealing enough ( I think he was joking but I cannot be sure)!

So perhaps, I was expecting some words from Ms Lim to try to ameliorate with words what her dress could not, but apparently, she is feisty and is fighting on (there is hope in this young lady – perhaps I should just ignore what little cloth I see). 

Read these feisty words from Kevryn ( here)  Perhaps Kevryn is thinking " What does not kill me makes me stronger! " Nietzsche or Kelly Clarkson ( if you must).

Then let the voters decide- put her in Macpherson against the aunty killer PAP’s Tin Pei Ling! 

Anyway- congratulations to Tin Pei Ling (another very feisty politician) who is now proud mother of a bouncy baby boy! 

Cheers,

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

#butilovesingaporemore : EBRC needs to change to reduce gerrymandering stain

Dear Friends,

When the report of the ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES REVIEW COMMITTEE  (EBRC) was presented to parliament as a white paper on 24th July 2015, there was understandable skepticism from a sizable segment of the population.

For instance, in a Sunday Times article (The new GRC: Jalan Besar 2nd Aug 2015), it was noted that Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew’s Moulmein ward has all but disappeared into 3 different GRC’s ( Tanjong Pagar/Holland-Bt Timah/Bishan-TP). Of course all of us know Lui helms the ministry that is closely related to SMRT’s recent hiccups. I do not need to remind all about another ward ie Joo Chiat, as it will soon be a distant memory ( disappearing into Marine Parade GRC).

My previous post about Gerrymandering click here.

Whether this skepticism was justifiable is a point for further debate as the government did point out that the opposition was not obviously disadvantaged as Worker’s Party (WP) held wards were left intact as was Potong Pasir which Mrs Lina Chiam of the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) lost by the slimmest of margins in GE 2011.

That there was concern about the neutrality of the committee is not unexpected as the chairman was after all Mr. Tan Tee Yong, the Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, although the rest of the committee were experts who would generally be needed to provide professional input for such a report.

They were Dr Cheong Koon Hean – Chief Executive Officer, Housing Development Board (HDB), Mr Tan Boon Khai, – Chief Executive Officer, Singapore Land Authority (SLA)

, Ms Wong Wee Kim – Chief Statistician at Singapore Statistics and Secretary, Mr Lee Seng Lup – Head of Election Department.

A few clarifications would help reduce accusations of gerrymandering and to  preserve the good standing of Singapore:

1. What were the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the EBRC report
2. Other than the TOR, it would be wonderful if the EBRC could confirm that no other inputs eg which may benefit or vice versa any political parties, were considered.

I humbly suggest the following:

1. As in the UK (Boundary Commissions)  and Hong Kong (Electoral Affairs Commission), such a committee should be headed by a judge. NB In the UK, allthough the Speaker of the House of Commons is the ex officio Chairman, he takes no part in the proceedings and the Deputy Chairman of the Commission, who presides over Commission meetings, is always a Justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Commissions_(United_Kingdom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Affairs_Commission
2. The minutes of the EBRC should be open for public scrutiny.
3. EBRC should be convened at fixed intervals, eg 5 yearly

I also long for the day when the Elections department is run as an independent body ( unlike being under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) now). Should I be optimistic or follow some people’s advise who say I need to wait “long long” (Hokkien vernacular).

The processes of public affairs should not just be fair but also seen to be fair.

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

NB: #butilovesingaporemore : the reason why I speak up. It is not because i do not like the PAP . In fact there are many aspects of the PAP that resonates with me.