TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent Two deputy directors of HDB and People's Association (PA) have written a letter to Straits Times Forum in their official capacities to explain why the Life Upgrading Programme (LUP) is announced by the PAP grassroots advisers, or rather the losers in the last general election instead of the legitimate MPs in the two opposition wards of Potong Pasir and Hougang. (read letter here) The letter was written in reply to an earlier letter by a Mr Muhammad Yusuf questioning why the LUP was announced by the two PAP non-MPs who were rejected by the residents in the 2006 election. (read letter here) It is both shocking and incredulous that the two government agencies found fit to reply to public queries on behalf of the PAP. Aren't the HDB and PA supposedly non-partisan and apolitical in nature? Since the announcement was made by the two PAP losers, Mr Eric Low and Mr Sitoh Yi Pin, the onus is on them or the PAP to clarify matters. In any case, the reply was equally vague and baffling: "It is the Government's practice to implement its national programmes for residents through advisers to grassroots organisations who are appointed by the Government to gather feedback from residents." Is this the practice of the government or the PAP? A clear demarcation must be drawn here. The PAP is only a political party. The government of Singapore can be formed by any political parties other than the PAP. Since the PA is involved in the drafting of the official reply, is it in charge of these grassroots organizations? Are the two grassroots advisers acting on behalf of PA or the PAP? Or are they wearing two hats at the same time? It is stated clearly on its website that: "The People’s Association (PA) was established as a statutory board on 1 July 1960 to promote racial harmony and social cohesion....To achieve our mission in building and bridging communities to achieve one people, one Singapore, we initiate and offer a wide range of programmes and services to cater to the needs and interests of Singaporeans from all walks of life." Shouldn't a statutory board be kept above the political fray? How can the PA achieve its mission to "achieve one people" when it is affiliated to a particular political party? How is it going to cater to the needs and interests of Singaporeans who do not support the PAP? The letter also divulged that it is the PAP grassroot adviser who gathers feedback from the residents on LUP: "In the case of the Lift Upgrading Programme, the adviser gathers input from residents, thereby ensuring that the programme's plans meet residents' needs. The adviser may also propose changes based on residents' feedback, and seek residents' support when the programme's package is final-ised." Shouldn't this work be left solely to the MPs? The MPs of both wards should be the de facto grassroots advisers as they were given the mandate by the residents to serve them in the constituencies and represent their interests in parliament. Both losers have no right to be meddling in the affairs of Hougang and Potong Pasir. It added that "Therefore, it is appropriate for the adviser to announce the programme precincts and lead the programme's working committees in all constituencies." This entire fracas is handled inappropriately by the PAP, HDB and PA from the very beginning! It is inappropriate for the PAP losers to undermine the authority of the legitimate MPs by replicating their work at the grassroots level. It is inappropriate of HDB and PA, being government and not PAP agencies, to work with the losers and not the MPs. It is inappropriate, rude, callous and disgraceful of the PAP losers to ignore proper protocol to announce the LUP without informing or inviting the MPs to be represent. Are we having a situation where the PAP grassroots adviser have more power and influence than elected MPs? This is making a mockery out of our electoral system! Singaporeans get to vote for the MPs to serve them every 5 years. During the 2006 elections, the residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir have made their choice clear that they want Mr Low Thia Kiang and Mr Chiam See Tong to represent them! Are the PAP, HDB and PA respecting the wishes of the voters by sabotaging the work of their elected MPs? This is not a trivial affair affecting only Hougang and Potong Pasir. Should the opposition win more seats in the future, will their MPs be relegated to the sidelines as mere spectators by the PAP, HDB and PA as well? The PAP's usual practice of working through their grassroots advisers must be dismantled immediately! The elected MP of the ward should be the grassroots adviser and take charge of all municipal affairs concerning the estate including upgrading and LUP. All government agencies should deal directly with the elected MP regardless of their political affiliations and not outsiders who have no right or business to be intefering with the management of the ward in any way.  Read More →

From our Correspondent When asked why the lift upgrading programmes in opposition-held Hougang and Potong Pasir were announced by People's Action Party (PAP) advisers and not its incumbent Members of Parliament, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said this has always been the practice, as they are the ones liaising with the HDB. "I don't expect the MP who's not ... a PAP MP to explain why LUP is like that, why we need co-payment, what the co-payment is all about. The adviser is always the one doing it, and it's no different this time round," he said. With due respect to Mr Eric Low and Mr Sitoh Yi Pin, one does not need to be a genius to understand what the LUP is all about, so why can't the announcements be left to the legitimate MPs instead? This obsolete and inappropriate "practice" must be rectified immediately. HDB should liaise directly with the incumbent MPs regardless of their political affiliations and not the losers who have no business to be involved in the first place. The residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir have expressed their desire clearly in 2006 for Mr Low Thia Kiang and Mr Chiam See Tong to serve them respectively. As such, all matters pertaining to the running of these two estates including the LUP should go through the two MPs for them to implement the national initiatives on the ground. HDB is a government agency and does not belong to the PAP. HDB officials are civil servants paid for by the citizens of Singapore and not from the PAP's coffers. It just happens that the minister in charge of HDB is a PAP member. Being a government body, HDB should be completely non-partisan and apolitical in nature. They should be fair and even-handed in dealing with all the constituencies, be it opposition or PAP. There is no law stipulating that only PAP grassroots advisers are allowed to liaise with HDB. Does a PAP grassroots adviser have greater powers than an elected MP of the ward? Furthermore, both Mr Low and Mr Chiam have been relentlessly lobbying Mr Mah Bow Tan to upgrade their estates. Almost immediately after the 2006 elections, Mr Low said that he would bring up the "$100 million upgrading package" promised by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong in Parliament. On the other hand, nothing was heard from Mr Eric Low until he announced last week in a media interview all of sudden that he has brought LUP to Hougang. Mr Eric Low should know his rightful place in Hougang. Even if Mr Mah asked him to make the announcement, he should have the decency to inform Mr Low Thia Kiang and invite him to attend the press conference since he is the official MP of Hougang. It is ungentlemanly and ungracious of Mr Eric Low to claim all the credit for himself to undermine the authority of Mr Low Thia Kiang in Hougang. As an important minister, Mr Mah should stay clear and aloof of such petty politickeering on the ground and put the interests of the nation above that of the party. Constituencies should not be divided based on whether they belong to the PAP or the opposition. All their residents are Singapore citizens who pay taxes yearly and serve national service. They should be accorded equal and fair treatment by the government.  Read More →

OPINION The Straits Times published an article recently on the plight of two student-founded and led online newspapers - NUS's Campus Observer and NTU's The Enquirer which are struggling for survival due to lack of funds and manpower. Founded in May 2006 by ten NUS undergraduates, the Campus Observer had a daily readership of 100 to 1,000 visitors and had up to 20 volunteers putting out five articles a week, from news to commentary pieces. Now, its website content is updated by a group of just seven volunteers, producing just one report a week during term. Without an office, they meet instead at various locations on campus once a week. They do not have advertisers either, but they are not considering registering as a company, and do not aim to make a profit. Rather, they seek only journalists who thrive on 'passion' alone. Can journalism even survive, let alone thrive on "passion" alone? Though passion is crucial in the initial stages of new media development, be it running a blog or an internet newspaper, it can never sustain the momentum for long. Sites run by student volunteers will never go far because they depend chiefly on their enthusiasm and passion which will fade with time as the founders graduate and leaving their work to less than interested juniors. Even for those who are really passionate about blogging, they cannot afford to spend all their time and energies on it because they will be unable to feed themselves based on the advertising revenue alone. Again, popular composite sites run by a team of volunteer writers can only continue as long the writers are keen to write for them, but as we all learn from the lessons of life, nobody will take their part-time pursuits seriously unless they can offer them a secure livelihood and career. When this site was started two years ago, it had three administrators. None of them remains with us now. One was posted to China while the other had to spend more time on his work. In fact, we just changed a new team not too long ago. Our readership has increased by more than 100 per cent in a year or so, but the advertising revenue had not kept pace with the increase in traffic. On the contrary, this site is losing hundreds of dollars a month because we need to move to a more powerful server to accommodate the heavy traffic load and to employ more freelance writers to contribute to the content. Surely we must have the initial passion to sustain the site this far, but we cannot go on like this indefinitely. We must have a proper system in place to ensure that the site is self-sufficient in terms of funding and staffing in the long run. That's why we have decided to incorporate a company to run the site, but that alone is hardly enough. We need to develop a viable business model to generate adequate revenue not only to maintain the site, but to further develop and expand on it as well. There are three stakeholders in Singapore's fledging new media: readers, journalists and bloggers. Bloggers like us are continuing our uphill task to counter the domineering influence of the mainstream media because we believe that Singaporeans truly need an alternative voice. Readers visit our site because they are sick and tired of what is being covered and reported by the state media, but quality journalism comes at a price. Are our readers willing to pay for it? The ideal situation is to have at least two full-time journalists to manage the site so that we can start producing original news articles instead of adapting them from the state media. However, journalists in Singapore don't come cheap. Their wages will cost at least S$5,000 a month. Temasek Review is no longer just a site run by a few bloggers. It has evolved into a public forum for all Singaporeans where their real voices and grouses can be heard. Every one of our reader has a stake in it. It took us almost two years to attain the online readership of TODAY. We have the confidence of taking the site further and competing directly with Straits Times if we have enough resources and unfortunately, we have no choice but to pass the cost to our readers. The Malaysians are willing to pay extra for independent and objective news which explains why Malaysiakini is the No 1 online news site in Malaysia despite being a subscription-based site. At one point or another, we will have to make our readers pay for an in-depth critique, an interview or a video clip. We now have 8,000 to 10,000 readers a day. Imagine if 1,000 of you are willing to pay $5 a month to support us, we will be able to go very far. Most importantly, it is time that Singapore journalists awake from their slumber and provide the leadership so desperately needed in the new media. In Malaysia, the two most influential news site - Malaysiakini and The Malaysian Insider are founded and run by professional journalists. Why can't Singapore journalists step out of their comfort zone and challenge the establishment? Of course there is a price for everything in life. Trained, qualified and experienced journalists will not write for us unless they are properly renumerated at market rates. In fact, we may even have to pay more to entice them to cross over to our side. So at the end of the day, it all boils down to you - the readers. You are the real masters, bosses and owners of Temasek Review. You are the ones who shall decide our destiny. Will we stagnate and disappear from the new media scene altogether or will we continue to grow from strength to strength? It depends chiefly on the degree of support we can garner from you. Come and join us and help us destroy the veil of ignorance which has come to enshroud our beloved Singapore since the incorporation of SPH in 1987! Free our minds from the shackles that the state media has imposed on us and allow our nation to achieve true greatness by harnessing the potential, energy and talent of every Singapore citizen!   Related articles: >> Dissecting Minister Lui Tuck Yew's take on the New Media >> Mourning 25 years of the demise of a free and independent press by Eugene Yeo >> Why there is no “Malaysiakini” in Singapore by Fang Zhi Yuan and Lim Siow Kuan (This article was published in Malaysiakini)   EDITORS’ NOTE: As of today, we have already reached the weekly traffic of TODAY Online and The New Paper according to web traffic company alexa.com. We are now ready to implement the next stage of our roadmap. Though we are now the de facto number one socio-political blog in Singapore, we are still a long way from challenging the mainstream media directly and breaking through their monopoly on the new media.  Without dismantling this first major obstacle in our path, change will never materialize in Singapore. In order for us to exceed CNA's readership to become the undisputed leading internet newspaper in Singapore, we need a lot more resources and your support to our cause will be invaluable. If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account ([email protected]). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Thank you! Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview  Read More →