TR EMERITUS

Goodness gracious, it seems that the People’s Action Party (PAP) is being savagely plagued by a never-ending streak of bad luck, as if karma is determined to bring them into the abyss of hell. Just last week, we saw how the “Men in White” had desperately used their majority in parliament to forcefully push for the narrative that both Vivian Balakrishnan and K. Shanmugam, who were their cabinet ministers involved in the Ridout Rental’s Fiasco, were innocent. Within this one-sided drama in parliament, we saw how Christopher De Souza, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, who, despite being charged with professional misconduct as a lawyer, was allowed to preside over a parliament hearing over the Ridout Rental scandal where the integrity of two PAP ministers were being questioned and the house is debating if there is any “conflict of interest” involved. Then news broke that the Court of Appeal found two senior politicians from the Workers’ Party liable for fiduciary failure in the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC ) case. Yet throughout the Ridout Rental scandal and the investigation carried out by the PAP’s own politicians, no one bothers to mention the numerous fiduciary lapses and failure`s that had occurred at Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which in turn, would have implicated their Law Minister who oversees the statutory board. Has politics in Singapore become so perverse and vindictive? As karma would have it, then we heard how Tan Chuan-Jin, the Speaker of Parliament, who finally admitted that he did use expletive language in making a disparaging remark about a parliamentarian from the Workers’ Party, and ended up showing his true “nasty” colour. More scandals Looking back, who can forget the high-profile arrest of Zainudin Nordin, the former President of the Football Association of Singapore (FAS), who happened to be a former PAP Member of Parliament and mayor, and Winston Lee, the former Secretary-General of the FAS? Weren’t we all perplexed when the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) decided in September 2021 not to file charges against them for possible misuse of funds despite actually physically arresting them in person? How about the Keppel’s corruption case, where the AGC again decided earlier this year that there is no charge to be filed against the six senior executives from Keppel or investigate Lee Boon Yang, the Chairman of Keppel Corporation and who was also a former cabinet minister of the PAP. Where is Indranee Rajah in all of these latest scandals that are currently plaguing her beloved PAP? The breaking news yesterday has to be S. Iswaran, the Transport Minister who is currently assisting the investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and “has been instructed to take a leave of absence by PM Lee”. Is this the beginning of the end for the PAP? What if we are to include all the extramarital affairs of the PAP parliamentarians and the perceived corruption and emerging scandals at the institutional level of our public institutions, agencies and statutory boards? Should PM Lee blame the bad advice given to him by his pool of advisers on the use of money politics to entice mediocre to join his 4G PAP, or should he blame himself for his own failure? Honour Or Horror In looking at all these horrific developments that are savagely ripping the PAP apart, we can safely deduce with great certainty that the PAP ministers and politicians are no longer respectful of PM Lee or his leadership. So if there is still any honour left in Lee, then the only honourable thing left for him to do is to step down and admit that he has failed us and our country. In this way, at least the legacy of the late Lee Kuan Yew, his father, may still be worth preserving, no? But if PM Lee is to ignore the writings that are already painted vividly on the walls, then Presidential Election 2023 may well be used as the ultimate platform by patriotic Singaporeans to send him a Hard Truth that his Men in White have definitely gone far too black and are beyond redemption. In the interim, we have to ask ourselves if we still believe that Singaporeans deserve better…   Joseph Nathan      Read More →

Let’s call a spade a spade – when Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin said “f**king populist,” it was not simply unparliamentary language, it was an expletive, an F-bomb. An expletive is a swear word. Some call it obscenity, vulgarity or profanity. In recent memory, what comes closest to it in the Singapore Parliament is a notorious incident in 1995. Singapore Democratic Party Member of Parliament, the late Ling How Doong, said “don’t talk cock” in the midst of a Parliamentary debate. He was responding to something his fellow opposition MP Chiam See Tong had whispered in his ear. For uttering those infamous three words, Ling was formally censured by Parliament. Will the Speaker of Parliament get hauled up for his expletive? It could be argued that coming from the Speaker, the F-bomb is worse than an MP saying “don’t talk cock.” The Speaker is supposed to enforce the orderly conduct of parliamentary business. So when the Speaker himself is out of order, how is he expected to maintain order? We might also consider the Speaker a referee, one who has to be neutral and impartial to do his job properly and professionally. In the case of Tan Chuan-Jin, he has often shown himself to be a referee kayu – the Singlish chant to scold a referee for making biased decisions. However, this time around, he went way beyond being referee kayu – he was verbally offensive to a player. Have you heard of a referee throwing an F-bomb at a player? This should earn the referee a straight red card, making him unfit for the role. The Speaker made a lame and somewhat ludicrous attempt at justification when he said he was muttering to himself his “private thoughts.” Private thoughts remain private thoughts. If private thoughts can be heard, how can they still be called private thoughts? The very least the Speaker of Parliament deserves is to be formally censured by Parliament. But the more appropriate thing to do would be to give him the red card – he needs to be banished from the Speaker’s chair. The ball is in the court of Leader of the House Indranee Rajah.   Augustine Low      Read More →

Mr Tan Kin Lian My friend told me to take part in the presidential election. He said that in a straight fight against Tharman, I stand a good chance to win. I disagree with my friend's flattery. Tharman is a well liked person and a strong candidate with impeccable credentials. Using my actuarial knowledge and the help of my crystal ball CB, I calculated that my chance of winning is less than 10%. I expect to spend $150,000 in the campaign. It will come from my personal funds. The wealthy people, including my friends, will not contribute to my campaign, as they have vested interests to protect and do not want to face "negative consequences". I do not want to burden the ordinary people to make the donation. It would also be quite troublesome for me, as every donation have to be reported. So, the expenses of $150,000 will come out from my personal funds. Even if I win, and the chance is less than 10%, I would face the following negative consequences: a) I cannot go to Forest City and meet my ghost friends there. b) I cannot speculate in stocks and share my big gains and losses c) I cannot tell stories about the one who play tricks on me d) I cannot visit Ah Lee for my kway teow soup. My friend said what if I win? I would earn $1.5 million a year, or $9 million over 6 years. I told my friend that it will not be that much. I would donate 50% of the salary towards charity and to set up a private office to monitor the views of the ordinary people, and to understand the daily problems that they encounter. The private office will not be staffed by civil servants (who faced difficulty with the SOP of the civil service). I will employ my campaign helpers and pay them a good salary, out of a portion of my presidential salary. So, after the charity and private office expenses, my net income as president would be modest, but more than adequate. I did a final cost-benefit analysis and came to this conclusion. Any rational, sensible person, will not embark on this undertaking and enter the campagin. It would be against their personal interest. But I have always been quite unconventional all my life. I pursue goals out of a sense of duty and not for personal, selfish reasons. Even my own family members find me to be "crazy". I will ask my father, who has departed nearly 30 years ago, to come back in my dream and advise me. While he was alive, he told me something that had relevance to my decision today.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →