A Redeeming Feature of the PAP Government

As outraged netizens it is quite natural to vent our wraths on the arrogant PAP government from time to time for the innumerable injustices by it. It is equally natural for the government to promote an international benevolent feature in order to divert some of the local broadsides. It is for its political capital that it is doing this but this should not detract from the immense succours that disaster victims received, especially in the case of colossal natural disasters such as a tsunami.

The Meulaboh tsunami disaster in December 2004 presented the PAP government with a golden opportunity to show to the world its readiness and benevolent prowess in rising to the humanitarian occasion promptly. Meulaboh was a sleepy Acehnese town in Indonesia and the tsunami destructions were so widespread and devastating that they were beyond belief. The number of lives lost was inestimable.

Team Singapore was the first to descend on the devastated town, before other foreign governments and non-governmental organisations (NGO), and began the agonising task of rescuing the survivors and resettling them. After that came the laborious and lengthy task of rebuilding and rehabilitation. That Team Singapore has persevered relentlessly since the start of the disaster in Decembver 2004 till now in its noble task of rebuilding and rehabilitation showed its sterling quality and determination which in turn reflected on the international acclaims to the PAP government. The tsuname disaster in Aceh with its subsequent rebuilding and rehabitation can indeed be said to be a showcase of the PAP government's humanitarianism. The colossal devastation of the tsunami disaster had shocked a normally placid world and the PAP government's heroic role in rescue, rebuilding and rehabilitation could not but elicited a show of respectful gratitude from an amazed world.

Here is the irony of it. It is all very well for the PAP government to promote an international humane image. When it comes to the local scene, it shows it is not so benign in its ruthlessness in dealing with the opposition parties and those who are not so sparing in their vitriolic criticisms of the government. Maybe it is in its mental make-up that it finds it antipathic to show the same kind of justice and fairness universally as in its international image projection.

Prime Minister's and ministers' silence on major public occurrences and happenings is not going to endear the government to the public, not to mention losing public confidence. The recent SMRT Changi depot security lapse and the Orchard Road deluge are only two cases in point. Then there is the question of a fair general election but the general expectation is that there will be gerrymandering when electoral boundaries are drawn up, obviously not to the advantage of opposition parties contesting the election. Of course, it will be a godsend if the PAP government can show a little more fairness and justice but is this not analogous to wishing for the pie in the sky?

Are Singaporeans Paying For Monkeys?

The question that is being asked frequently in the internet is:Are Singaporeans paying for monkeys? By right monkeys deserve to be paid peanuts but how come we are paying millions.

The recent occurrences have not given the public the confidence of a government that holds high the concerns of the public. The golden silence of the Minister for Transport and Minister for Home Affairs on the debacle of the security lapse of the SMRT at its Changi depot is a typical example. They were either lofty in their attitude or remiss in their responsibility of the implication of the enormity of the SMRT security lapse. It was ludricuous that this could have escaped the attention of the two ministers.

Next is the comical performance of the Minister for Environment in connection with the recent flood in Orchard Road. Whether the public view it as shirking responsibility but his elusive presence was not to be found in the Orchard Road flood area when it was imperative for the flood victims, especially the serious ones, to be given sympathetic succour. He was like an invisible man who appeared after the storm to utter such crass statement that such flood occurred only once in fifty years. Such flippancy can hardly give confidence to the public, especially those in the flood-prone areas, that we have a minister who could tackle the flood situation.

Then there is the equally crass statement of the Prime Minister that it is impossible in Singapore to expect the place to be completely free of floods. This is the kind of talk that aims to pre-empt any public wrath to descend on the government should there be any unmanagable devastating flood befalling Singapore in future. In other words, the government is seeking an easy way out. The PUB should have by now identified the flood-prone areas and discovered the cause. In fact their officers are condifent of overcoming, if not minimising, the problem. So what is all this talk by the Prime Minister of not expecting a flood-free Singapore, if not to divert the attention of the public.

The trend of ministers, including the Prime Minister, of showing indifference towards occurences and happenings that the public view as affecting their security and welfare is disquieting, to say the least. There are very considerable criticisms by netizens on the ministers' haughty attitude. It automatically brings up the question that the astronomical salaries that the Prime Minister and his ministers get are really what they deserve and a fair charge on the taxpayers' fund. So the netizens coined the phrase:Are Singaporeans paying for monkeys?

MM Lee Kuan Yew the "Forecaster"

It would not be far off the mark to say that the narcissistic MM Lee Kuan Yew would consider it an honour if he were invited to officiate the opening of the Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort. But he had to settle for a second best by touring the MBS a day before its grand opening, which to some people may be seen as a form of unofficial opening ceremony before its actual officiation which will no doubt tickle his ego.

But a leopard can never change its spots. True to his swaggering character he cannot help opening his big mouth, in conformity to his calling as a "forecaster", to predict that the newly opened MBS will take up to seven years to reach full capacity. With his official status MM Lee could not have been accompanied on his tour of MBS by any lesser personality than the MBS Chairman Mr. Sheldon Adelson.

One cannot expect Mr. Adelson to be amused by MM Lee's unflattering forecast, evidently not based on any tangible evidence but on his whim and fancy. How is Mr. Adelson going to face his shareholders if he allows such a deleterious remark, not one made by an ordinary mortal, to pass with impunity. Mr. Adelson is a shrewd Caucasian, one who must have had considerable experience in his career in dealing with high-ranking politicians of all political hues and colours and would certainly not be overawed by their prominence. He blithely told a disconcerted MM Lee that he believed that MBS would achieve full capacity in the year 2011. MM Lee was clearly seen to be taken aback by the Chairman's candid retort and could be seen to have no answer to his statement. Mr. Adelson is therefore seen to have reasserted his position thus giving assurance to his shareholders that he is no pushover.

Whether MM Lee will take this as a lesson to curb his egregious habit of "forecasting" for the wrong reason at the wrong time will be something which Singaporeans will be relieved to know.
He is paid more than $3 million a year from taxpayers' money to do what he himself has described as "forecasting". His position is a sinecure and he has so much time on his hand that he jets around the world, not infrequently, on taxpayers' funds to overwhelm his gullible audiences with his irresitable charms, making booboos in the process.

The latest example is in his eulogy to the late Dr. Goh Keng Swee whom he described as the minister who acted on his own "to have a clean break from Malaysia". Of course, such a serious controversial divergence from known facts could not have been allowed to pass without accountability. Dr. Goh is no longer around to clarify and the controversy has unfairly impinged on his character. Whatever is the motive of MM Lee to bring this up after Dr. Goh's death only time will tell. But in view of the disquiet generated by this controversy among the public, MM Lee is now trying strenouosly to carry out damage control in order to salvage the situation. His feeble attempt at vindication in the Straits Times of 22 June is a typical example.

The Sophistry of Minister K. Shanmugam

It is obvious that the government is trying strenously to manage damage control as a result of the fallout from the serious security lapse at the SMRT Changi depot. Whilst the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Home Affairs had remained reticent, for reasons best known to themselves, on the security breach, it has now fallen on the shoulder of a discomfited Second Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam to make a belated sophistry on the goverment's dissociation of responsibility on security of private sector installations giving SMRT and its depots as an example and citing prohibitive costs as the main reason.

It is incredulous that the Minister could come up with such a simplistic view on a matter of considerable gravity as security. It is fortunate that the security breach at the SMRT Changi depot was a graffiti caper by two innocuous foreign pranksters. So the SMRT honchos are held responsible for the security lapse although the government cannot escape embarrassment and loss of face. Up to this stage the dissociation of responsibility stand of the government appears to sound reasonable.

But has it occurred to Mr. Shanmugam that, instead of two foreign pranksters, the security breach at the SMRT Changi depot could have been carried out by Jemaah Islamiah (JI) terrorists? Does he think that these JI terrorists would be there to spray-paint graffiti on the train? The consequence of such a scenario would be immensely devastating especially if the carriage is packed with commuters. Will Mr. Shanmugam consider such a security situation to be the responsibility of theSMRT honchos for them to manage?

So Mr. Shanmugam will have to show more ingenuity and circumspection in explaining to the business community or private sector, that whilst it is their primary responsibility to look after the security of their installations, the circumstances in which the government will assume full responsibility of any breach of security, for instance in case of terrorist-inspired incidents.

The SMRT Changi depot security breach was a good example where the Minister for Transport or the Minister for Home Affairs could have come out in the first instance with an assurance to the commuting public that security at the SMRT was being reinforced for their safety. Instead it was left to the SMRT chief executive Saw Phaik Hwa to express deep regret for the "serious lapse", quite flippantly because some people said that she was merely aping DPM Wong Kan Seng. It is appropriate to ask here if an assurance from a government minister would have a greater impact on the commuting public.

A Comic Opera

It's uncanny that it was a Swiss national Oliver Fricker who showed how easy it was to breach the so-called unbreachable security of the SMRT's Changi depot to spray graffiti on an MRT train in the middle of the night. What made it all the more comical was that the train was allowed to ply its services for two days without anyone's being the wiser although SMRT now claimed that its staff thought it was an advertisement. Is the claim not a bit far-fetched?

Fricker may not have realised it at that time but his impetuous artistic painting, though may have appeared to him to be an innocuous caper, is certain to have caused great consternation to the powers that be. They may have been probably woken to the harsh reality that their elaborately laid out security of protected places could be breached by some foreign prankster out to make fun of the hubristic PAP government.

By his caper Fricker has knowingly or unknowingly caused the government to lose face and public confidence. Does he seriously think that the PAP government will show magnanimity and let him off lightly? Fricker may not have realised that his folly could have brought him serious consequences or he might have had second thought about going through with his prank. Then there is an alleged accomplice and the government is not going to let him off either. What part the alleged accomplice had played in this prank may only be known when he is arrested and brought back to Singapore. He is believed to have fled to Hongkong.

DPM Wong Kan Seng cannot be amused at the ease with which Fricker had breached the security at the SMRT's Changi depot. It is fortunate that it was just a prank for DPM Wong will be singing a different tune if it had been done by a Jemaah Islamiah (JI) terrorist group. Because what the JI terrorists would have done would not be just spraying amusing graffiti on the train. The scenario could be quite devastating.

We wonder if the SMRT's chief exective Saw Phaik Hwa really realised the gravity of the SMRT security gaffe. It is quite flippant for the CEO to just say she deeply regretted the "serious lapse" (here some people said that she tried to ape DPM Wong Kan Seng) and tended to shift responsibility to SMRT staff.

Another glaring fact is the complete silence of the Minister for Transport on this SMRT security lapse. It does not seem to concern him and he does not consider it important for him to reassure the commuting public that security of the SMRT is being reinforced for their safe travel.

Neither have we heard anything reassuring from DPM Wong Kan Seng who is the Home Affairs Minister. Are we to assume that the government is complacent about the present SMRT security lapse until a real terrorist incident explodes in its face?

The Secession Conundrum

True to his disingenuous character, the Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew always has something up his sleeve which he would foist on the unsuspecting public, ostensibly to score a point. The latest is his baffling disclosure on Singapore's separation from Malaysia which he made in his eulogy to the late Dr Goh Keng Swee at his state funeral. It was anybody's guess whether the distinguished audience at the funeral was taken aback by his enigmatic disclosure that it was the late Dr Goh who decided on his own, after discussions with Tun Abdul Razak, the Malaysian DPM and Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, the Minister of the Interior to have a clean break. In other words it was Dr Goh alone who made the decision to secede from Malaysia and later told PM Lee Kuan Yew about it. The Chinese have a proverb: Behead first and report to the throne later (先斩后奏).

From events at that time and what MM Lee Kuan Yew said in his memoirs it was the Malaysian PM Tunku Abdul Rahman who decided to expel Singapore from Malaysia, choosing to "sever all ties with a State Government that showed no measure of loyalty to its Central Government". Lee Kuan Yew was adamant and tried to work out a compromise but without success. He was later convinced by Goh Keng Swee that the secession was inevitable.

Lee Kuan Yew's Malaysian Malaysia adventure against the Central Government exacerbated by race riots in Singapore caused immense alarm to the Malaysian leadership, in particular Tunku Abdul Rahman. He came to the inevitable conclusion that he could not resolve the crisis and decided that separation was the best solution.

Singaporeans have been taken for a ride once too often by the highfalutin MM Lee Kuan Yew and it is about time he shows some civility and responsibility in enlightening the public as to his motive, whether good or evil, in portraying Dr Goh as the protagonist of the secession, especially when DR Goh is no longer around to question its truthfulness. It shows Dr Goh to be a man of gross impetuousity, making a decision on his own on a grave matter affecting the destiny of millions of Singaporeans. Is this a fair reflection on a statesman on whom the innumerable tributes show him to be a man of sound principle and not one to have acted on his own on such a grave matter as secession?

Well, the ball is now in MM Lee Kuan Yew's court. There is another appropriate Chinese proverb: He who ties the bell round the tiger's neck is the one to untie it (解铃还是系铃人).

A Premonition of Opposition Disintegration?

Even Heaven looks kindly upon the opposition and paves the way for it to progress to its present pre-eminence and hopefully up to and including the general election. The ground is definitely favourable in favour of it and it has all the electoral support from the new media, especially the netizens who have continually called on voters, especially young voters, not to vote for PAP. Of course, any support from the government-controlled mainstream media is out of the question.

In fact, it has all the characteristics of the victors in the Red Cliff battle in the Chinese historical saga, the Three Kingdom. On the eve of the battle, the fabulous prescient Military Adviser Zhu Ge Liang made his famous prediction: All things made ready but only lacks the East Wind (万事具备，只欠东风. As he patiently waited, the East Wind arrived and sent his armada into victory in Red Cliff. The Chinese history is quoted as an analogy to show that the opposition is having all things made ready but only lacks the East Wind in the form of unity to secure victory like the Red Cliff victors.

The talks between Reform Party (RP) led by Mr. Kenneth Jeyaretnam and the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) led by Mr. Chiam See Tong to form an alliance to contest the general election started on a promising note. It had all the makings of a remarkable beginning of a significant process leading to the indispensible unity of the opposition in facing the PAP in the general election. The talks were going so well that it came as something of a shock to hear the news that the proposed RP-SDA alliance had come to grief over the SDA's declination of acceptance of the 11 conditions of the RP after having earlier agreed to them. Kenneth Jeyaretnam was right to feel mystified and SDA Chiam See Tong did not improve matters by remaining tight-lipped.

Mr. Chiam See Tong seems to hold the key to this whole opposition unity conundrum.
A veteran politician like him should have no illusion about the paramount need of opposition unity in securing victory over the PAP in the general election. This should transcend all personal or party interests in the overall interests of opposition unity. The RP-SDA alliance fiasco will be viewed with exultation by the PAP leaders as it would mean that without unity the opposition will be less of a threat to their dominiance in the general election notwithstanding any favourable ground condition and new media support to the opposition. Of course, if the opposition parties were to contest against one another in a single ward or GRC, this will virtually amount to a walk-over for the PAP.

The general election is likely to be still some time away and the oppoosition, especially Mr. Chiam See Tong, should transcend their parochial interests to forge a solid unity and not let down their electoral supporters. If the opposition parties fritter away the present golden opportunity, they may not find a similar opportunity for a long time to come.