TR EMERITUS

The administrator of the YPAP Facebook has posted a "friendly" warning on netizens posting on its fan page to be aware of its "policy" to ensure discussions are "constructive, civil and respectful":   The posting brought a deluge of protests from netizens who question what the administrator meant exactly by "constructive". Some also complain that their posts on the YPAP Facebook have been deleted for no valid reasons. The PAP is notorious for its intolerance of criticisms of any sort and its Youth Wing is not doing any better in cyberspace where it has crossed swords a few times with anti-PAP netizens. Last year December, a verbal spat between YPAP leader Sear Hock Rong and vocal PAP critic Alex Tan Zhixiang on the YPAP Facebook even made the headlines. Unable to defeat his opponent in a civil discussion, Mr Sear resorted to name-calling. When challenged to a debate by Mr Tan at the Speakers' Corner, he "act blurred" and didn't reply. Three months later, another YPAP leader Eric How sparked an outcry in cyberspace by making disparging remarks about poor Singaporeans being cursed by their karma. He later lodged a police report claiming that he has been "impersonated" on Facebook. Two weeks ago, YPAP leader and new citizen from India Sinha Shekhar caused a stir when he boasted about owning a private property and a resale HDB flat at the same time on the REACH Facebook. The "award-winning" Mr Sinha had earlier described PAP critics as "DOGS" on the YPAP Facebook. His comment was not deleted and neither did YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck reprimanded him for it, an indication that he endorsed his remark. Though the YPAP Facebook has over 3,400 "friends", a significant proportion of them are hardcore critics who "like" it simply to enable them to post comments on it. It is almost impossible to engage in an intellectually stimulating discussion on the YPAP Facebook as any comment remotely critical of its leaders or policies are automatically deleted.     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

OPINION Singapore may be a first world country in terms of economic development and infrastructure, but the way the government interacts with the citizenry and vice-versa resembles that of a third world country. In fact, communication between the two is mostly a one way traffic with little or no interaction at all, the latest fracas involving the Ministries of Environment being a case in point. Last month, Singapore was hit by a series of flash floods unheard of before in various parts of Singapore, most notably in its prime shopping district of Orchard which caused damages and losses amounting to millions of dollars. The immediate response from Singaporeans who were described as "champion grumblers" by PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew is predictable: a torrent of criticisms was hurled at PUB and ultimately the Ministry of Environment responsible for the drainage system in Singapore. Amid the finger-pointing which gathers momentum in cyberspace, there is no response from the authorities to limit the damage from the PR fallout until two full days later when a press conference was called hastily by PUB CEO Khoo Teng Chye in which he offered an unbelievable explanation for the floods, but did not offer any apologies. The Minister in charge, Mr Yaacob Ibrahim was nowhere to be heard, seen or found during the entire saga and only spoke on the flooding four days later on the sidelines of a community event as if it has nothing to do with him. Instead of appeasing disgruntled Singaporeans affected by the floods, Mr Yaacob has the cheek or audacity to heap generous self-prase on his subordinates for their “efforts” in controlling the flood. “I think the response by the PUB, by the agencies, has been commendable. We have done our best to help the businesses affected, the people affected,” he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times. He was quick to dismiss the screw-up as another “learning experience”: “Every event is a new learning experience for us. This rainfall was totally unexpected, I can be very honest about it. If you look at rainfall patterns, we’ve never seen such a pattern. Having said that, it means there are new things happening, so the approach we should be taking is to learn from this, improve upon it, and assure Singaporeans that we’ll do our best to prevent this as much as possible,” he added. Mr Yaacob seemed to forget that he tried to "reassure" Singaporeans only last year November that such floods occur on a frequency of only "once in fifty years." There is a huge gulf in public expectations and the government's interpretation of the event. While Singaporeans are quick to pin the blame on the government, whether rightly or wrongly, the government's official stance is that the flooding is an "act of god" which is beyond its control. A week later, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong tried to obfuscate the matter by claiming that it is "impossible" to expect Singapore to be "flood-free" when all Singaporeans are asking is for some plausible explanation for the flash floods and somebody to accept responsibility for it. He pronounced that given Singapore’s “tropical climate”, any attempt to “wipe out” flooding in Singapore would require plenty of money and land without providing any concrete evidence or statistics to substantiate his claims. “I don’t think it is possible in Singapore to expect the place to be completely free of floods, as heavy downpours are very much part of the climate for an ‘island in the tropics,” he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times. PM Lee also urged Singaporeans to do their "part" by ensuring that the drains are not choked from litter. He may have a point - an active citizenry should play a role in the nation-building process instead of relying on the government all the time. In the Singapore context, the apathetic citizenry we have today is an indirect result of the PAP's dominance. Because Singaporeans have been told repeatedly again and again that the PAP "knows best", few bother or dare to offer their input. When mistakes like this happen, the government will automatically bear the brunt of the blame since it is being paid astronomical salaries to do its job, people naturally expect extraordinary results with zero tolerance for screw-ups. This saga illustrates clearly a long-standing problem in our society, described by writer Catherine Lim as the "great affective divide" between the government and the people. There is hardly any interaction between the two. The people complain, complain and complain, but refuse to do anything to help or contribute. The government evades, shuns and "tai chi" and only knows how to talk down to the people. To be fair, the flooding may be entirely unavoidable, but had the government shown more tact, empathy and EQ in handling the fiasco, the frayed nerves of Singaporeans may be more easily soothed. All Singaporeans want is a bit more humility from the government. As for the government, it wants Singaporeans to be more proactive, but it must understand that so long it continues treating the people like idiots, it can never expect any sort of participation from them.     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.      Read More →

The high salaries of ministers has been a contentious issue ever since they were ramped up over the years. This discussion is not whether it is right to pay such high salaries, but whether this policy is indeed good for the ordinary citizens. It has been reported that the median salary of Singaporeans is $2400 per month. A minister gets about say $150,000 per month. This is about 62 times what the average citizens are paid. If one compares the ministers' salary to the lower income group, the contrast becomes even more magnified. Even with the best intention and effort, it would not be easy for a minister to truly empathize with the financial struggles of the citizens. Put yourself (an ordinary citizen) in the shoes of the ministers. Your salary is $2400 per month. You are a minister and your average citizens are paid about 1/62 times your salary. That works out to about $39 per month. At the last the meet-the-people session, a Mr Tan came to see you to ask for help to pay his utility bills. With the increase of 10% over the past year, his monthly utility bill have risen from $0.97 to $1.06 per month (in real life, from $60 to $66). An increase of 9 cents per month. Can you, as a minister with a salary of $2400,really understand how this man (the sole bread winner) needs ask for help over a 9 cents increase? Another complaint you recently received is that after the Clementi hawker centre was renovated, the price of a plate of Char Kuay Teow has increased from 4 cents to 5.7 cents ($2.5 to $3.50). The residents are outraged and are concerned that the cost of living is sky rocketing. Again can you as minister really feel outraged that the price has increased by 1.7 cents? With a salary of $2400 per month, you may not even bother to pick up a 5 cents coin if you see one lying on the pathway. So the issues of ordinary citizens become abstract too trivial for ministers to comprehend. They may have the best intention for the citizens. But the situation is such that to the whole group of ministers the value of money has become warped. To the point that listening to a citizen's complaint over a 9 cent issue becomes kind of unreal. Of course on the surface, ministers will still have to appear concerned and equally affected as citizens. But on a personal level, they can only try to imagine what it is like to worry over several cents. They would have lost the ability to comprehend the value of money as seen through the eyes of others. So the issue of paying minister such high salaries will render the cabinet as a whole simply unable to comprehend how ordinary citizens are struggling. Is that a good policy for Singaporeans?     A Concerned Citizen  Read More →