Current Affairs – Punggol East By-Election

2 comments

Now that the candidates are known, it means Punggol East voters can start their decision process. For those who have decided to vote for an alternative candidate and would prefer to see one win, it is time to eliminate some of the choices. This would be how I would reduce the number of choices without using 1D6 (a six-sided dice).

Fortunately, the independent candidates all failed to get nominated so it saves everyone the trouble. Even if they managed to succeed, they will still be ruled out because of the requirement for the winning candidate to run the town council. While Mr Chiam See Tong also started off as an independent, he ultimately also founded his own party. In other words, the requirement to run a town council has more less eliminated the possibility of another person repeating Mr Chiam’s feat at Potong Pasir. So, that leaves the alternative candidates who are members of political parties, and I will then further disregard those from the Singapore Democratic Alliance [SDA] and Reform Party [RP].

Why do I disregard the SDA candidate? If I recalled correctly, there was what I perceived to be a “power struggle” within the Singapore People’s Party [SPP] and the SDA when Mr Chiam tried to bring the Reform Party [RP] into the fold. Even though it may not necessarily be a power struggle, the news reports of Desmond Lim’s actions – which may not necessarily portray what has truly transpired – brought back bitter memories of Mr Chiam ouster from the Singapore Democratic Party [SDP]. If there was any redeeming outcome to that little shit-storm, it would be that there will be no merger with RP. But it still left me with a not-so-sparkling impression of Desmond Lim.

The SDA also has two member parties – the Singapore Justice Party [SJP] and Singapore Malay National Organization [UMNO PKMS], but it is unlikely they could offer another candidate. In short, it is nothing more but an “alliance” in name but ‘one-man party’ in truth. A one many party is usually a bad thing, since the candidate basically do not need to worry about political continuity and I’ll elaborate a little more on that later, after I talk about Lim’s election strategy in 2011 and also why I would disregard the RP candidate.

In that election, Lim had slogans printed on his election posters which is basically an attempt to ride on the wave of resentment against the PAP. It obviously didn’t work out, because being upset with the PAP alone is never a good enough reason for most middle / swing voters to vote for an alternative candidate. Those who would typically vote anything but PAP may have voted for him, but only when there is no better candidate to consider. When I told my friend I was shocked at how badly Lim lost, my friend pointed out that Lim’s election slogans gave him the impression of Mao China during the Cultural Revolution. Non-Chinese voters will obviously feel neglected and I wondered why the PKMS did not protest (probably because it didn’t really understand those slogans anyway, and too busy with its own internal struggles). Lim can argue that the WP has been encroaching on his territory, and that he has been “walking the ground” and “serving the people” there, but most would interpret the voters’ rejection in the last contest as how they really felt about his work. It is rather surprising Lim still insist on contesting, since I was under the impression that he would have known how badly he did last round down to the polling station level.

Next, the RP. It is yet another one-man party. I had originally thought that Kenneth Jeyaretnam had over-estimated himself when he said he offered himself as the best candidate for the WP to back. I was wrong. The RP simply didn’t have any other candidate to offer as it has effectively ran itself into the ground. One only need to look at the party’s short history to come to the same conclusion. When Kenneth Jeyaretnam took over the Reform Party in April 2010, former party chairman Ng Teck Siong had called it an unconstitutional coup. Ng’s account detailing his departure, was posted on The Online Citizen. It would have been nothing more than a bitter old man’s parting shot had the party not suffered a mass resignation in February 2011. When former members like Jeannette Aruldoss, Tony Tan Lay Thiam, Hazel Poa, and Nicole Seah left and joined (and subsequently took over) the National Solidarity Party [NSP], the RP is effectively gutted. Is there any other notable person which the RP can offer now?

Even when I looked beyond the mess RP is in, I do not really know what to make of Kenneth Jeyaretnam. After the General Elections in May 2011, I recalled that he said he would look for a place in West Coast GRC to stay. I have no idea whether he kept up with that promise but if he did I could at least respect his conviction to try and eke out a niche for himself. But he has recently said he will move to Punggol East if he was elected. So whatever happened to his commitments to West Coast GRC? When he said he will not go “missing in action” in his nomination speech, did he feel a little tug at his conscience and remember the voters of West Coast GRC? It is ironical that his campaign in Punggol East is about “broken promises”. Even Desmond Lim wins hands down in terms of determination and commitment.

Furthermore, one of the “reasons” Kenneth Jeyaretnam gave for contesting in Punngol East is also one of the lamest I have ever heard – i.e. it was part of Cheng San which his father has contested. If anyone should support him because of his father, then by that very same argument, they should also resolutely support the Prime Minister not because of his own merit, but because he is Lee Kuan Yew’s son! Laying claim to another person’s legacy is no way of showing one’s own merit. What would we have thought of WP, if it had claimed to be the successor of JB Jeyaretnam’s mantle even if it no longer practice his brand of politics? Even the Prime Minister has the courage to stand up and say, “I am not my father” when we consider how long a shadow his father has cast.

For Kenneth Jeyaretnam to once again invoke the memories of his father showed that he has no grasp of election strategy, because the first few HDB blocks of Sengkang New Town which made up a large part of Punggol East were only just completed when his father was campaigning in Cheng San. Demographically, Punggol East today is a very different one from that of 1997. Even if it was the same, there is no reason to believe some of his father’s former supporters would remain loyal to him but not the WP which J.B. Jeyaretnam was Secretary-General in 1997. Kenneth Jeyaretnam may want to point out that the transfer of party leadership from his father to Low Thia Khiang took place in bitter acrimony, but why should anyone be interested in his family, or personal feuds with other individuals?

So, let me get back to the point on why any ‘one-man party’ is bad. That is because one-man parties are really not any better than an independent candidate even though there are party members to call upon which give the candidates a seemingly greater presence. As I mentioned earlier, there is also the matter of political continuity, or as some would put it – political “succession”. The lack of political continuity in the Singapore People’s Party is one of the reasons why Mr Chiam’s foray into Toa Payoh-Bishan GRC did not turn out as well as that of Low Thia Khiang’s into Aljunied. Political continuity in a party also means that a candidate would be less likely to be self-serving. While it can be argued that Desmond Lim and Kenneth Jeyaretnam may still be able attract new talents if they are elected, an election victory will only compliment a leader’s charisma and leadership qualities but not replace it. To put it into perspective, even Dr Chee Soon Juan has been more capable in attracting talents into the SDP in spite of the fact that he has not been able to contest in two General Elections for half a decade. Meanwhile, the SDA and RP have not been able to make the same progress in that aspect. The SDP’s recent dramatic and yet bold withdrawal from this by-election, may perhaps explain why the SDP is doing doing way better in terms of talent recruitment even when I may consider that its ‘branding’ may have perhaps been poisoned beyond redemption. Above which, the SDP may have ‘lost face’ here, but it had earned the grudging respect of some for its courage.

Lee Lilian of WP thus stands out among the rest of the alternative party candidates even before we consider her own merits. I am not saying that the eligible voters of Punggol East who are considering an alternative party candidate must definitely vote for her because that choice has always been theirs to made. I am only presenting my view why she is the best candidate to vote for, if voters would like to prevent a decisively PAP win. That’s not forgetting that voters must also put their feet down and put an end to the aspirations of willful, myopic and egoistic politicians.

Advertisement:



Commentary – Opposition “Disarray”

2 comments

After having gone around to look for my friends at all the three McDonald’s near Chinatown MRT Station last evening(the result of a horrible 3G network not delivering my Whatsapp messages on time to my friends for them to inform me of their exact location), I was extremely hungry and also seething with anger when I finally arrived around 8pm at the correct McDonald’s restaurant. While I was chewing miserably on my Big Mac, I saw this on the Facebook app on my Xiaomi MI-2 phone:

The Singapore Democratic Party has called for a joint campaign with the Workers’ Party, where both parties field one SDP candidate. If victorious, the SDP candidate will enter Parliament and WP will run Punggol East Town Council.

I was suddenly laughing myself silly. After showing it to my friends, one of them gave this analogy (and I paraphrase):

It is like you have been wooing a girl, and when you are about to succeed some chap came around and say, “Hey, you let me have the girl. Support me while I woo her. If I marry her, I’ll specifically perform one husbandly duty – the sex, and you will bear all the rest of the husbandly responsibilities – like working to support her, love her, raise the children, take care of the in-laws etc. Consider this a combine effort to get ourselves a wife. On bo, BrooooOOOoooo?!”

If I was the Workers’ Party Secretary General, I would be laughing my ass off because this has got to be the dumbest proposal I have heard in my life. It not only insults my intelligence, it is simply political suicide! Just who will be so dumb to put in effort to run the town council for the SDP, and when things go wrong takes the blame for it? The proposal shows that the SDP is incapable of managing and running a town council just like the independent candidates. Running the town council is one of the yardstick in which an Member of Parliament is measured, and also one of the ways an MP can serve the voters who elected him. The SDP has basically told the voters of Punggol East that it is not interested in doing that, and they expect the voters to elect their candidate? Only the so-called “lunatic fringe” could have accepted and backed such an arrangement. This proposal is so outlandish and silly that Chee Soon Juan might as well also suggest to the Reform Party to back down and support the SDP’s so-called “Unity Candidate”, and whoever will be the Reform Party candidate can do the ‘Meet the People’ session and perhaps share half of the MP allowance if the SDP is elected. I wondered whether the SDP might actually get a favorable response, since Kenneth Jeyaratnam Jeyaretnam actually claimed credit for making a similar silly proposal to the WP even before the SDP did!

Someone had even suggested the SDP is determined to contest in Punggol East to block the WP from growing even stronger, because the WP has been growing at the expense of the other opposition parties. Well, that might explain why the SDP and RP are desperate to make a splash, or they risked marginalisation. But in their desperation, their stupidity has caused even the WP to lose credibility because the PAP Internet Brigade [IB] will now have a field day painting the entire opposition with the same brush. If this person’s assertion is true, the fact that the SDP and RP actually turned on the WP when they can’t eke out their own niche shows they are more interested in their own agenda, and not that of Singaporeans. Their attempt to keep all political parties equally matched and feeble will only help the PAP. On the other hand, some middle voters may even decide that it isn’t worth the time to listen to the opposition anymore. If this is some kind of grand melee, the PAP is awarded points for achieving a technical K.O. because the SDP and RP laid down on the canvas merely after the bell rung for Round 1. I am not upset because the SDP and RP (and a whole lot of other people) intends to contest the by-election in Punggol East as that is their right, and also that of any other eligible citizen to do so. But I am clearly upset now because these two opposition parties are insulting my intelligence!

While I am not against the SDP or anyone else contesting in Punggol East, I must point out that the SDP clearly over-estimates itself as it often does. Though that’s not as bad as Kenneth Jeyaratnam Jeyaretnam who clearly over-estimates himself when he offered himself as a candidate for the WP to back. First of all, the SDP says that if the WP would stand behind it, and it will field a candidate that will be able to defeat the PAP. It has got to be dreaming because in the 2011 General Elections, Michael Palmer of the PAP polled 54.54% (16,994 votes) of the votes. That’s not only more than half of the eligible votes polled but more than half of Punggol East’s 33,281 voters. Both opposition candidates polled a collective amount of 45.46% of the votes. The victory margin of the PAP was 9.08% (2830 votes). Assuming the PAP suffered a 10% vote loss from their supporters due to Palmer-Laura Ong affair, at best that would add 1,700 votes to the opposition and make the contest evenly matched when we must also consider that some of the opposition voters might also swing in the PAP’s favor. In comparison, for the WP victory in Aljunied to happen, the PAP suffered almost a 20% vote loss in Aljunied compared to their votes polled in 2006 and that include a reduction in voters in Aljunied as a whole. In other words, the SDP wants us to believe it will not only outperform the opposition showing in the previous contest, it can actually defeat the PAP when there is no conclusive evidence that there will be a definite opposition victory. That’s not forgetting that regardless of the credentials of the SDP candidates, the SDP name has been so poisoned that it actually gives some middle voters pause when making their decision, which might add to the vote loss the opposition is also expected to suffer. Furthermore, if the WP backed another party and not participate, voters who previously voted for the WP in GE2011 may also be pissed about being “abandoned” after they have offered their support just slightly less than 2 years ago. Perhaps the SDP leadership has some crystal ball that we do not know of to be so confident in their assertion.

The only hope for a opposition victory would be opposition voters voting defensively and sensibly so we can see the ‘Anson Spirit’. If the RP thinks this is my endorsement of their bid to contest in Punggol East, I must say whether there is a Jeyaratnam Jeyaretnam in this contest doesn’t matter at all. In fact, the Jeyaratnam Jeyaretnam name would be further sullied if the votes it obtained paled in comparison even to that of Harbans Singh in 1981. I wonder if the old man would be rolling in his grave. Personally, I hope the RP Secretary General would stop invoking the name and memories of his father, because he has drawn down on that account so often that it is now perhaps into overdraft.

It is my wish that the SDP and RP end their childish behavior, and just concentrate on the upcoming campaign. At the very present, they seem to be doing more to destroy their campaign than to win it. If all these talks will win anyone the seat in Punggol East, there is only one party they should be talking to, the PAP. Because whoever who can talk the PAP out of the contest really deserved the seat hands down and the other parties should just abstain.

Regardless whether the opposition gained the seat in Punggol East, it doesn’t really matter because it doesn’t really tip the balance in Parliament in anyway. However, it would have the effect of a mid-term election for the ruling party, because it will be a signal to the PAP whether the people are accepting what it has been doing since GE2011. In any case, the star of some parties will rise higher while some would fall. No matter how the SDP and RP perform in this coming election, they will most likely only sink deeper back into the cesspool they are already in. There might not be any effect for the already dismal Singapore Democratic Alliance [SDA] overall, but many voters do expect the non-WP opposition parties to do what they felt is sensible. Surprisingly, by virtue of doing almost absolutely nothing (except announcing that it would not contest in Punggol East), one party has elevated itself to a position right after the WP – the National Solidarity Party [NSP]. Some might think that the NSP must be regretting its decision not to contest, but by staying clear of the controversy, it would gain some respect for its resolve. By seemingly doing nothing, the NSP has done the most for opposition unity!

Even the Singapore People’s Party [SPP] also somewhat elevated itself up the ranks, though one would say Mrs Chiam maybe no less a maniac than Chee Soon Juan. But Lina Chiam was a nurse, and is Mr Chiam’s wife. In my considered opinion, Lina Chiam is fiercely loyal to her husband and may not necessarily be a power hungry person out to seize power. Whatever she has been doing may simply be a faithful wife doing everything necessary to protect her husband from further harm, considering Mr Chiam’s physical condition after his stroke. I am not surprised if everything she does is what she perceived to be in the best interest of Mr Chiam, considering his experience with the other party he founded – the SDP – and also the SDA. Sadly, Mrs Chiam may not be aware that her actions is doing far more to destroy Mr Chiam’s legacy while she protects him from further harm.

Advertisement:



Commentary – Legality vs Being right

Leave a comment

After I read the 26-paragraph statement from Teo Ho Pin, this immediately came to mind: “If being right is standing on your own two feet, resorting to legality and claiming that everything is procedurally in order and thus being right, would be like crutches to the legless. It is their only way to stay upright. And there’s only one outcome to that, that they will need to expend large amount of energies holding on to those crutches even if they want to go anywhere, or else they will be crawling like worms on the ground.”

I understand describing the PAP this way would be insulting to handicapped people without legs, and I apologise for all the offense I have caused to this courageous and determined group of people because I can’t think of a better analogy as yet. I meant no offense, because their will to live on is admirable and a beacon for able-bodied people who lost hope.

But why did I think of such an analogy? That’s because what Teo Ho Pin wants us to know is that everything is according to procedure and above all, legal. The logic is that as long as everything is prim and proper, then it has to be right. Indeed, Teo Ho Pin wants us to believe that it is right, and everything leading to the decision to do it was logical. But there is a difference between being right, compared to being logical, legal and according to procedure. Even though it may not be illegal because it is all according to procedure and proper reasoning, it still doesn’t make it right. So, I won’t waste time rebutting his entire statement point by point like some have done ever so resolutely, nor will I go again into the matter of alleged conflicted of interests. I am putting all that aside not because they are not important, but I simply prefer not to join everyone else in flogging a dead dog. On top of which, I reject his statement because it doesn’t make any sense. Let me explain why.


Click for Original Size

Teo Ho Pin may imagine his statement to be perfect, but there is a chink in that armor and I had to point it out. First of all, the closing date of the tender is 14th July 2010. But according to Teo Ho Pin’s statement, AIM only submitted its bid on the 20th July 2010. Why is the bid even accepted 6 days after the tender has closed? A few of my friends who do sales told me that this doesn’t make sense because they often had to rush down to submit bids before the closing date. At times, even when the office may close at 5pm, the bidding would have ended at 4pm because the officer in charge of the tender process has collected the documents and he has the discretion to reject further bids even though the day is not yet out. The question here is, was there a hitherto unknown new tender called after the end date on 14th July which allowed AIM to submit this bid? Had Teo Ho Pin missed out this important detail in his long winded statement? (This had been the kind of effort I expected of Teo Ho Pin when he was asked whether someone has received a 8-month bonus in the Northwest Community Development Council back in March 2009. Instead, all he said was he had no knowledge of the staff’s salary details, and that it may not be unwarranted and was all according to National Wage Council Guidelines. That response clearly paled in comparison to what he has done here. Perhaps, these self-styled “elites” will only start putting in an effort to do what is necessary when backed into a corner.)

Anyway it was reported on The New Paper that Mr Oliver Tian, the Chief Executive of Hutcabb Consulting, one of the companies which collected the tender document said, “It was very hard to make a decision based on what was provided. After paying more than $200, we simply got a thin stack of documents and the town councils were unable to provide us with more information.”

This give us the perception that none of the other 4 companies were actually given sufficient information to be able to put in a bid. So, as part of my wish to understand and accept that everything is according to procedure (and thus legal), the anomalies above has poked an even bigger hole in Teo Ho Pin’s statement. Will Teo Ho Pin please further elaborate on all these matters so we can be clear once and for all? How about revealing the tender documents so we can see for ourselves?

I was also told that it is very commonly done for entities that wishes to be asset light to do a ‘sell and lease back’ – for e.g. a company selling all the desktops and servers to a system integrator and then leasing them – but doing so with a $2-company is completely unheard of. It further boggles the mind when AIM is not even listed on common directories like the Yellow Pages and the Green Book, and it’s physical address is that of the PAP Community Fund cum PAP HQ. It also has no company website, and thus it begs the question on how it satisfy the eligibility criteria as an ‘experienced and reputable company with relevant track record’ as stated on the advertisement (see inset above). Teo Ho Pin said nothing about AIM’s capabilities nor its relevant experience but instead talked about how AIM’s offer of $140,000 for the software “earned” 14 town councils just a meager amount of $8000 nett, and also its affiliation to the PAP. It would require a lot of faith – the religious kind – to accept that such a secretive and virtually unknown $2-company had met the requirements of the tender on “its own merits”. That’s about as good as I telling you that my favorite plumber can perform an operation on your mother.

“Last night, Mr Chandra Das declined to give details of AIM’s track record and business dealings…” – Straits Times, 3 Jan 2013.

To make matters worse, Chandra Das, an ex-PAP MP, was reluctant to give any details on AIM’s track record and business dealings. That in itself is strange since many IT companies would be happy to reveal such information which often projects confidence and competence, while their success with other customers would serve as case studies for consideration. Coupled with Teo Ho Pin’s assertions that AIM is backed by the PAP and will thus honor its commitments, business might actually come rolling into AIM and it might actually turn into another success story like NTUC Fairprice supermarkets.

But without AIM’s portfolio to back up, it doesn’t matter at all Teo Ho Pin tells us that the AIM transaction had served public interest. This did nothing at all to assert AIM had the merits in the first place even though it may vindicate the decision to approve AIM’s bid. Teo Ho Pin may assert that there is no basis to suggest that the AIM transaction disadvantaged residents of Town Councils, but he could perhaps only speak for the PAP ones. There is no denying that Aljunied-Hougang Town Council [AHTC] was subjected to terms and conditions negotiated not by it’s current management but the PAP one, and the outcome of that certainly created a mess for AHTC. To put things back into proper perspective, I am not making any allegations that AIM – fully owned by the PAP – has not acted in good faith, or that it is motivated by political agenda in how it subsequently handled its business relationship with AHTC. I am simply pointing out that this is the general perception and so far all these statements and clarifications etc has not changed that perception a single bit. Hopefully, Singaporeans are still entitled to think, and feel a certain way about certain matters.

Even if there is any blogger who wanted to help the PAP change that perception, they have nothing solid to stand on. It would be entirely foolhardy for anyone to even try to write what Grace Fu wrote in a recent Facebook status – that focusing on AIM was irrelevant, and suggest that this is nothing more than politicking by the Workers’ Party to divert attention from the alleged mismanagement of its own town council. Has none of the PAP grassroots even informed her that the Town Council Management Report is perceived as nothing more than an attempt to make the Workers’ Party look bad? Assuming that perception is true, then it has badly backfired. It makes us wonder how someone like Grace Fu, who is purported to be some of the most elite people in this country, had her head in the fog and apparently does not understand the crux of the matter. I guess, it’s really hard to be politically sensitive when one is high up in the ivory tower. Above which, why is the minister herself speaking up for AIM? If AIM has been such a reputable and experienced company that we are made to believe, why can’t it speak for itself? I have to say, AIM would have been quite an inspiration to budding entrepreneurs, had AIM not been affiliated with the PAP. Where else can we find $2-company which can win tenders, and even have ministers defend it and 14 clients at one go?!

It has been about 3 weeks after this matter come to light, and there has been nothing concrete enough to fight the perception of this being nothing more than a lame and underhanded attempt to fix the Workers’ Party. In fact, I am getting really confused on where to draw the line between the PAP, the PAP Town Councils and AIM, even though they have different names, and are different legal entities. Teo Ho Pin maybe able to show everything to be legal and procedurally correct, but that will never made it right. Just like the Mas Selamat issue, the PAP may think it can talk its way out, but this matter will not come to a happy conclusion until someone takes the fall. Perhaps there is only one option left for Teo Ho Pin, that is to do what is proper and resign as co-ordinating chairman and even as Member of Parliament. That might actually act like a salve for public anger over this matter and do his party some good even though no one could really say this is his fault.

But if he wants to stay put and hope we forget this whole AIM matter like a bad fart, he might want to remember Mr Wong Kan Seng and the case of Mas Selamat’s escape. Singaporeans didn’t really forget that one even though few people seems to be still talking about it after some time.

Advertisement:



Random Discourse – Town Councils & Action Information Management

2 comments

” For procurements where only a single bid is received, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) will require officers responsible to provide additional justifications to the approving authority within each agency.

The officers must set out why they consider the single bid competitive or reflective of market prices, before a decision is made to award such a contract. “

– Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam (in Parliament), 13 Aug 2012

Some time in June this year, it was revealed that the National Parks Board [NParks] placed a tender for 26 Brompton foldable bicycles which cost a total of S$57,200. The cost of each bicycle (S$2,200) naturally upset many, who felt that they are too expensive and a waste of public funds. The Ministry of National Development [MND] subsequently conducted a probe and in the end an officer from NParks was suspended from duty. An internal audit also uncovered some discrepancies which suggested “the possibility of bias in the procurement”, although the discrepancies were inconclusive by themselves. I won’t go into too much details over this matter, since my objective of bringing up this matter was to serve as a reminder that the government went on to tighten rules on its tender processes and Deputy Prime Minister [DPM] Tharman Shanmugaratnam spoke in Parliament on this matter. I would like to draw your attention in particular to what the DPM said about single bids in a public tender (see inset).

The reason I brought this up is because the so-called co-ordinating chairman of the 14 PAP town councils finally crawled out of his hole to answer to the matter about a contract between the town councils and a company (owned by Peoples’ Action Party [PAP] members) over the sale and leaseback of computer systems. Teo reviewed that there was an advertisement placed on the Straits Times on June 30th 2011, and subsequently five companies collected the tender documents, the only bidder was the PAP-owned Action Information Management [AIM].

To avoid accusations of nitpicking, I would let the matter of whether that one single advertisement for just one day would have garnered enough attention pass. However, even though town councils aren’t under the purview of the Ministry of Finance, what the DPM said about single bids makes a lot of sense. As such, can Teo actually find out and tell us why in the absence of competition was the tender awarded to AIM? How exactly did whoever made the decision to award the contract, consider AIM’s single bid competitive or reflective of market prices? How can we be assured that there has been no “possibility of bias” in the decision? I am sure even if it meant each of us paid only 5-cents into the development of this software, everyone still have a right to know. I would expect Teo Ho Pin to answer these regardless whether he is involved in the decision making to award this contract or not. Teo Ho Pin certainly has a responsibility to clear all the doubts since it was his own party who demands that everything be above board and white-than-white. He should answer all these questions to the people’s satisfaction and not dodge them!

Frankly, I would have expected no contracts to be award to a single bid after merely one tender exercise. Even my employer would have asked for 3-bids to ensure that it got the best pricing for some items it is purchasing, even when some of them don’t even cost more than a few hundred dollars. That’s not forgetting that the National Environment Agency [NEA] will only award a stall with only a single bid after two tender exercises. Why is a tender for such contracts involving large sums of money not subjected to the same stringent requirements?

That aside, AIM was said to have offered to buy the software for S$140,000 and manage the system at a monthly fee of S$785 per town council, for an initial term ending on Oct 31, 2011. No one could have miss the blatantly obvious fact that 14 PAP town councils would have paid AIM S$131,800 (S$785 per month per town council) within a year. In short, AIM practically got the Town Council’s software for a song (if not for free) because it would have technically recovered 94% of its cost in a year. For a $2-company which we know very little about – for e.g. the number of staff and the terms of the software maintenance contract, this is ‘arguably be the best business tender deal of the century’ as Mr Leong Tze Hian mentioned in his post. Perhaps even Temasek Holdings should learn a thing or two from AIM to not only stop its recent bleeding, and make even better returns than the average of 17% a year.

Jokes aside, I doubt it was that lucrative. And that brings up another question. As an IT person, I am not interested in whether AIM disputed (or refuted) Aljunied-Hougang Town Council’s [AHTC] claims that it had to fight for a service extension to continue using the existing town council management system. What I am more interested is the details on how a relatively unknown $2-company like AIM service the contract it has gotten from the town councils. The company seems rather secretive too, because even a search in Yellow Pages website turned up nothing and on the Green Book website I gave up after 10 pages of search results.

It was said that this company didn’t even have its own office and shared the address with a whole lot of others. Assuming that it is all legitimate and not just a shell-company, where does AIM station all its staff? How much manpower does it actually employed? Just for this contract alone, is there any real people actually dedicated to software patching, to deal with bugs in the system, and also to update it? How often is any form of servicing done? In fact, I am even more curious knowing that the town councils maintained the hardware which would suggest either another company or the town councils’ own in-house IT does backups and ensure operational continuity. I know how often infrastructure (be it networks, servers or even desktop support) clashes with developers, programmers and application support. As such, where is the line drawn here? If the case is whereby the infrastructure side took on much of the support burden of this management system, then it would suggest that AIM got a fat contract without needing to do much.

I can think of a few other possibly more capable local SMEs besides AIM, because it appears to be a practically unknown company. The main stream media such as the Straits Times should have done more to inform us about this company by now. Unfortunately, it never seem to have the journalistic instinct to follow up on a lead to keep its readers informed but often spend more time beating up on alternative media…

Short Takes (Dec 10th ~ Dec 15th, 2012)

Leave a comment

It has been a rather exciting week, and in fact, an exciting December when it is usually a quiet month because most people are away on vacation and pretty much nothing happens. So here’s a (not so) short take on what’s transpired in the last few days.

Let me be clear. The purpose of fare increases is not to boost the short term profits of PTOs. It is also not just to improve salaries of bus drivers but to improve service to commuters while keeping public transport operations commercially viable. This is why we must work with the PTOs to ensure that when granted any fare increase, they would re-invest part of this revenue to improve the PT system to benefit commuters. This can be in “hardware”, like more buses and trains and upgrading the signalling systems. It can be in “software”, like better terms and salaries for staff. That includes bus drivers and train operators, as well as the maintenance and service personnel who work tirelessly day and night to deliver a safe and reliable public transport service.

– Lui Tuck Yew on Facebook, 13 Dec 2012

~ * ~

“The costs of improving the reliability of the train network will not be passed on to commuters, Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew promised yesterday, as he addressed MPs’ concerns over this issue.”

– Lui Tuck Yewk, 11 Jul 2012

Transport Fares – Revisited

Lui Tuck Yew should simply just shut up and sit down. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to insist that commuters should face endless fare increments when the Public Transport Operators [PTO] have already received S$1.1 billion (that’s S$1,100,000,000 for those who loved to see the zeros) in handouts, have been making healthy profits all these years with not only no visible improvements so far but having suffered several moderate to major breakdowns over the past few years. All the more so, when he insists on that in the wake of the SMRT’s own failure to handle its own human resource problems.

There is no such thing as the costs being is paid for by the commuters, taxpayers in the form of government subsidies or PTOs. The government likes to make everything look like a 3-party relationship to portray the image of perfection when none of that really ever exists. Be it commuters or taxpayers, they are still the people. In other words it’s either paid by the PTO or the people. When the people has paid so much and has always been paying either in the form of the Bus Services Enhancement Program [BSEP] and never ending fare increments, it is high time for the operators to take up some of that slack!

Can the minister really tell us that the operators have not been commercially viable in view of their ever increasing profits? Don’t tell me that the cost to operate or fuel prices whatever have gone up 30% while fares did not catch up as much. It is clear in spite of that PTOs are clearly not only capable in managing those costs, but even turn a profit. Can the minister really say service have improved after the previous fare increments? If service has really improved at all, why had it turned into a hot issue during the 2011 General Elections and as a result the BSEP has to be introduced? As for reinvesting part of their profits, the question would be why haven’t they done so after the previous fare increments? Why did the PRC drivers go on strike if the terms and salaries for staff have been constantly improving? It would appear to me that this matter didn’t just boil over in a short period, but that the grievances of those drivers haven’t been addressed for a long time.

What exactly happened to all those profits accumulated in the past? Since Lui actually mentioned signalling systems, the fact of the matter is, SMRT has mentioned that this was why train frequencies cannot be increased even before the major breakdown in December 2011. What the hell took the SMRT so long to decide to upgrade it? By the way, isn’t upgrading the signalling systems part of improving the reliability of the train network? If so, did the minister forget that he said a few months ago that it will not be passed to commuters? Or did we again misunderstand the minister as we all too often misunderstood his other colleagues as well?

Seriously, the Prime Minister should consider sending some of these ministers to communication skills classes. Alternatively, try to explain and talk about things in a way that even a Primary 5 student can understand. That way it leaves no room for misunderstanding.

~ * ~

Equal remuneration for all in the same jobs?

Can you imagine that this Lim Swee Say person is actually ministerial material and considered to the some of the most capable people in this country? The way he put it is wrong in at least two levels. First of all, going by his logic any employer can now “justifiably” pay a single, unmarried Singaporean whose parents have passed away less than his peers because he has no family to support. Next, since there is currently no minimum wage implemented in Singapore, it further allows employers to discriminate against a person from Bangladesh (for example) by paying him even less for a road sweeping or dish collector job compared to the most down and out of luck Singaporean who is already paid dirt for that job. (Note: I am not trying to advocate for minimum wages here.)

In the wake of the illegal strike last month by some SMRT bus drivers from China, calls have emerged for equal remuneration for all in the same jobs, but National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) chief Lim Swee Say said that this is “not the way to go”, calling the issue a “complicated” and “sensitive” one.

Equal remuneration will “disadvantage” local workers and their families as they have to bear the cost of living here, while the bulk of the money foreign workers earned here is sent back to their home countries, said Mr Lim at a media conference to address migrant workers issues yesterday.

So what is the context and basis behind the call for “equal remuneration for all in the same jobs” [Chinese: 同工同酬]?

It arose because of the recent PRC drivers’ strike, but it is obvious no one is actually asking for a pay increment for every single foreign worker to bring their pay on par with Singaporeans unless he is utterly insane. All the more improbable that many Singaporeans would give a damn about foreign workers since they were recently often accused of xenophobia. Anyway, it has always been clear to any sane and logical person that it is stupid and unfair to insist on absolute “equal pay” for every job, in particular jobs such as research, programming, performers etc. It is also illogical to insist on paying the same for jobs where efficiency is concerned, not to mention that there is a difference in each person’s capabilities and experience. I believe nobody would require any further elaboration here.

Back to the matter of the mainland China [PRC] drivers. When one look beyond their personal resentment against the so-called ‘Ah Tiongs’ (a less than flattering local term for the PRC Chinese), we would understand that part of their grievances was that they were discriminated against in terms of remuneration simply because of nationality. The question here is, since everyone is driving the same bus along the same routes with the same basic skills, why then are PRC drivers paid the least?

So let us consider whether there are any merits of the PRC drivers’ perception of pay discrimination. In my opinion, it is not entirely true because we understood that Singaporean and Malaysian drivers often come with their own value add by default. That comes either in the form of familiarity with the local traffic rules and regulations, or having a language advantage in certain cases. Above which, we also understand that the PRC drivers were given lodging benefits whereby Singaporean or Malaysian drivers would have to fend for themselves in that aspect. But no one can deny that the living conditions of the lodgings provided for the PRC drivers have much room for improvements, as even Singapore’s lapdog media and SMRT’s top management admitted as much. However, it is hard to argue that the recent pay increment was not unfair, if not discriminative when it was given out to increase the pay of drivers overall to attract more new blood to take up the job, and also to discourage existing drivers from quitting. Individual performance or merits was never part of the consideration here.

Thus, the call for “equal pay” for PRC drivers is a more of call for pay equality in essence. In any case, the entry level pay should be the same though an individual may be paid more based on his value add and experience at the employer’s discretion. Increments should then be based on an individual’s capabilities and performance, regardless whether the drivers are contracted or otherwise employed, and not their nationality. Simply put, those who are reckless and drive dangerously, will get less increments or even terminated while those who are commended or praised by commuters will get more.

It seems the NTUC deliberately translated the Chinese words “同工同酬” literally into “equal remuneration for same jobs” and created a straw man argument, because Lim Swee Say said the same thing about pay equality (picture on right) which I just explained above. As far as I am concerned the NTUC’s response serves only one purpose: To turn public opinion against this call for pay equality in spite of its original good intentions! Then again it’s not unexpected considering my long standing opinion of our so-called trade unions.

~ * ~

Michael Palmer’s indiscretion & “Identifying” Laura Ong

Why am I not surprised that it is Lim Swee Say again in this dastardly deed? I can hardly agree with the reasons given in this case. It is like someone saying, “Since you will get shot sooner or later, let me give you a hand by pushing you out into the line of fire.”. That’s exactly how I felt about this so-called explanation. Thus, The word that should be used here is not ‘identify’, but expose.

The People’s Association (PA) deputy chairman Lim Swee Say said on Friday that the organisation deliberated at length on whether to identify Ms Laura Ong as the woman involved in the Michael Palmer affair but ultimately felt they could not keep it under wraps.

He said that although they did not want to “add to her pain” by identifying her, they recognised that the case had attracted much public attention.

I have often asked to see some gender equality in cases like these – for the woman to be named and shamed because all too often the men take the fall. But in this case I actually felt sorry for Laura Ong even though I might have called her a slut, a hussy or any horrible words I can think of a woman like her. Sadly, she alone took the fall this time, while the press sang the praises of “Saint Michael von Palmer”.

As far as I am concerned, exposing Laura Ong was a calculated move. It was clearly done to divert public attention onto the poor woman and her life while the PAP does damage control, or hope that the people will forget after reading the juicy details of her life. The press should have some decency and end their intrusion into her private life. She may have been in the wrong but enough is enough. Why the difference in handling the matter when the “limelight” is often in the past shone on the men to make them look like cads, if not monsters?

Frankly, I had originally considered it commendable for Palmer to come clean and resign even when a friend pointed out that he only did so after his “love emails and SMSes” were leaked to the press. This friend has a point since it is not unreasonable to believe that this affair might have continued had that not happened. Had the matter gone to public first, Palmer’s handling of the matter and the PAP’s reaction may not have been so well organised. We only need to compare the press’ handling of this case with that of Yaw Shin Leong to see the drastic difference, and remember how they dogged the Workers’ Party back then.

Laura Ong has been shamed enough already. We do not need to know all those other juicy details about her family, her life and her other indiscretions which I will not repeat here. There are bigger issues such as the relationship between the PAP and the People’s Association [PA] mentioned in this article. Michael Palmer is no more “honorable” than Yaw Shin Leong, or Ng Boon Gay. Both have betrayed the trust of their wives. It is utterly shameful for the press to singing praises to the PAP for its handling of this matter in light of what has been done to Laura Ong.

1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 186