One up for honesty albeit a funny one! When a politician gets brutally honest, it can be quite funny sometimes.In an article in The Straits Times, 'Ministers can raise profile of MPs' regional forum' (Page C12, 22 Jan 2010), Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, Singapore's Speaker of Parliament, was reported to have said the delegates to the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum (APPF) 'had sought ways to give the APPF a higher profile and higher-level presentation.'When asked if the proposed changes to the APPF arose out of criticisms that it was a mere talk shop, MP Abdullah said:It's easy to say it's a talk shop, which in a way it is, but at a deeper level.That settles it... bring on the heavyweights from the region to sink the APPF further into a 'deep-level' talk shop.The APPF 'gathers parliamentarians from Asia-Pacific countries yearly to discuss global issues and make resolutions to tackle them.' It was founded in 1993.Has this group achieved any thing significant after 17 years? Well, they have two 'milestone' declarations so far - the Tokio Declaration in 1993 when it was first founded and the Vancouver Declaration in 1997. Read them if you have the time and decide for yourself if these are 'milestone' declarations. There isn't much activities reported for the past 12 years since the last declaration in 1997.And what good is a declaration made up of motherhood statements with no power to bite?By the way, the 'Tokio' Declaration is not a typo error. That is how it is spelled on the APPF website, www.appf.org.pe. Sorry is indeed the hardest word to say... Is it so hard for a PAP Minister to admit to any mistake publicly?I thought the recent revelation by MM Lee Kuan Yew on the difficulties of implementing the bilingual policy in schools was quite clear – the Government made a big mistake in the way the Chinese language was taught in schools and it took the ruling party over 30 years to resolve the issue.On 18 January 2010, The Straits Times reported that Law Minister K. Shanmugam, in a response to a student who asked if the Government’s bilingual policy, in particular, the teaching of the Chinese language, is a mistake, said:So I don’t think the bilingual policy is wrong. Maybe requiring you to master it at a very high level, writing as well as speaking, may have to be changed. The policy is not a mistake, but the expectations that were placed, in terms of the proficiency that was expected, may have been too high.Singaporeans know the bilingual policy is good for the nation. Many countries in the world have such policy too. I believe the student who asked that question was only interested to find out if the Government was wrong in teaching the Chinese language the rote way.The policy is not wrong but the execution of it is definitely incorrect. The policy is not a mistake but the high expectation placed on students is definitely a blunder. Any good intention badly executed is still a mistake. Is it so hard to admit that?Let’s take a short trip down memory lane to hear what MM Lee said about the bilingual policy. On 17 November 2009, in a CNA report, ‘Insistence on bilingualism in early years of education policy was wrong: MM Lee’, he said:We started the wrong way. We insisted on ting xie (listening), mo xie (dictation) - madness! We had teachers who were teaching in completely-Chinese schools. And they did not want to use any English to teach English-speaking children Chinese and that turned them off completely.Successive generations of students paid a heavy price, because of my ignorance, by my insistence on bilingualism. And I wasn't helped by the ministry officials, because there were two groups - one English speaking, one Chinese teaching.If the above is not conclusive enough on the ‘bad after taste’ of the bilingual policy, let’s go further back in time. On 3 November 2009, in a Straits Times report, ‘Bilingual policy was most difficult: MM’, MM Lee said candidly:Eventually, we settled the problem in 2004 by teaching the mother tongue in the module system. Had we done this earlier, we would have had less wastage of students' time and effort, and less heartache for parents.In my world, the word ‘problem’ connotes something is wrong and it needs to be rectified. Does the Law Minister still think the wasting of students’ time and effort was not wrong? Does he think the unnecessary heartache inflicted on parents was not a mistake?This Government could definitely use a little humility when the time calls for it. Not every policy is good. Ill-conceived policies cannot be quietly swept under the carpet or discontinued. Singaporeans know how to give credit where it is due. Does the Government know how to accept responsibility in return?I shudder to think this administration may not actually know the severity of the damage caused by these bad policies on Singaporeans over the years and thus it sees no need for any admission of guilt.I am also concerned that not enough ‘honest and quality’ information is channeled back to the policymakers to help them ‘see’ the damage caused by bad policies.In a speech at the Speak Mandarin Campaign’s 30th Anniversary Launch on 17 March 2009, MM Lee said:School examinations no longer concentrate on mo xie, dictation from memory, or ting xie, listening and writing. They are not needed in real life. With computer programs, you can type the pinyin and the characters will appear. Since 2007, we have allowed the use of digital dictionaries in national examinations.Well I have bad news for MM Lee. My children are still bombarded with ‘mo xie’ and ‘ting xie’ at school. In fact, one of my daughter’s classmates broke down over ‘mo xie’ today. She is just a Primary Three kid. I guess the heartache for parents is not going to go away for a while. Perth 2009 It was nice visiting our relatives in Perth last December. Good food, great wine, wonderful company, and a nice change of pace of life. My kids really enjoyed the wildlife in Perth.We love taking pictures of scenery and nature (animals, birds, insects ,etc) although some people may think indulging in such simple pleasure in life will make one stupid. Well, the last picture in this post is my response to people who harbour such thoughts.Lazing around Scarborough Harbour...Vineyard and restaurant in Swan Valley... great place for a meal!Scots Presbyterian Church, Fremantle (1890)...A dusty road leading to Marapana Wildlife Park...A sleepy Koala... they sleep about 20 hours a day!A up-close view of a deer...Wild camels are a problem in Australia...An albino Kangaroo with a 'joey'...The famous Australian dingo...The Tasmanian Devil... they are small but look ferocious!Another kangaroo...Feeding the birds in Joondalup... don't try this in Singapore unless you have $500 to spare!Caught a seagull in flight...Another one in flight...These birds are really good at catching seeds in the air...HaHaHa... To Be Or Not To Be... The recent revelations by MM Lee Kuan Yew are quite controversial. I guess he can be brutally frank. For someone in his twilight years, he does not need to answer to any one on Earth anymore.If you have the time, go read the full transcript of MM Lee Kuan Yew's interview with Mark Jacobson from National Geographic on 6 July 2009 at www.news.gov.sg. The watered-down version of the interview in The Straits Times on 5th and 6th January 2010 is just so (fill in your own adjective).MM Lee's take on Singaporeans in this interview is quite 'raw'. So are you ready for this?Q: “What would you say the parents of the second or third generation of Singaporeans and their children are not able to compete with the new people? How do you tell them?”Mr Lee: “We tell them look they have got to work harder or they’ll become stupid. It’s just that they don’t see the point of it. Why race when you can canter and save your energy and do other things? Art, ballet, sports whereas these new migrants, they spend all their time slogging away in the library or at home.”Q: “You’re not saying that arts, sports and ballet are not important, are you?”Mr Lee: “No, I’m not saying they are not important but an inordinate amount of time is spent on extra-curricular activities.”Do you get this feeling MM Lee is not really interested in making Singapore a sporting nation and a renaissance city? How can we excel in these areas without breaking out a sweat? To excel in anything, you need to spend an inordinate amount of time in training before you can compete on the world stage.It is also strange for MM Lee to lament about young Singaporeans spending too much time on arts, ballet, or sports when his colleagues are so obsessed with achieving sporting glory to the point of importing foreign talents just to get the job done. The inordinate amount of money the Government spent to nurture such foreign talents does indicate it is serious about such development, isn't it?How can the Government allow foreign sports talents to eat, sleep, and enjoy ping-pong all day at its expense and only expect Singaporeans to play a stressful game of 'Chop the Library Seat' with new migrants? Will Singaporeans really become stupid if we do not play this 'game'?In Jan 2008, MM Lee said in a newspaper report, 'Be like Italy - aim for a cultural renaissance':'If you go to Florence or you go to Venice or you go to Rome and you see their churches, their museums, and you see the number of sculptors, painters sitting outside trying to copy Leonardo da Vinci, you know that was the beginning of the renaissance. That is a great civilisation.'On Austria, he noted how the nation was the centre of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and is home to the famed, almost 500-year-old Vienna Boys' Choir.'These are things which take a long time to nurture, and that night at Iseas we were nurturing some,' said MM Lee.The MM Lee in January 2008 seems to understand arts and cultural movement takes a long time to nurture and such development is good for a nation. The MM Lee in July 2009 thinks it is stupid to spend so much time on such activities.I am really having a tough time understanding what this Government wants out of Singaporeans. Oh no... am I becoming stupid just like what the sage has predicted? Alright, I better teach my children to play 'Chop the Library Seat' game tonight lest they become stupid like me.And guess what - 'Study', 'Stupid', and 'Singaporean' all begin with the letter 'S'. What a coincidence! Phew! Glad to know I still have some grey matter left up there. Read more >> Options >> Merry Christmas! Truth Hurts... The Sunday article, 'Morals & Morale', by Dr Lee Wei Ling on 29 Nov 2009 reveals another 'secret' of the much debated Bilingual policy.Dr Lee wrote: I remember many years ago Mr. Lim Kim San telling my father that if my brothers and I had not been able to cope with both Chinese and English, he would not have insisted that all ethnic Chinese students acquire an equal facility in both languages.This revelation on the Bilingual policy is by far the most hurting. Would Mr. Lim Kim San, Education Minister from 1970 to 1972, make the same consideration if it were someone else's son or daughter who could not cope with the learning of Chinese?I wonder how serious Mr. Lim was when he made that remark to MM Lee. How could Mr. Lim base the tenet and necessity of the Bilingual policy on the Lee siblings' ability to cope? This is unthinkable and unacceptable.Unlike rich families, a lot of Singaporeans did not have the resource to make up for poor grades in those days. Many families could only afford textbooks and nothing else for their children. Many hardly visited libraries with their children nor could they afford tuition for them.Does it mean if MM Lee's children could not cope with Chinese, generations of students would be spared the agony of learning their mother tongue at such an intense level?From this insight by Dr Lee, we can only infer that Mr. Lim Kim San was rather misguided on the Bilingual policy; an ill-advised education policy that has inflicted a lot pain on generations of Singaporeans in the process. No Bonus? You cannot possibly miss the screaming headline, 'No bonus for civil servants', on the front page of The Straits Times on 27 Nov 2009.One may think civil servants are shortchanged this year but isn't the 13th month wage supplement a bonus? Read this sentence in the report carefully:Apart from their regular 13th month wage supplement, civil servants will not be receiving any other bonus next month.Doesn't this sentence imply the 13th month wage supplement is a bonus and civil servants will not be receiving any other bonus next month? Still think there is no bonus for civil servants? This paragraph in the report says:This means that civil servants - from the Customs officer to the Cabinet minister - end the year with 1.25 months in extra payment, one of the smallest bonus packages in recent history.So is the headline, 'No bonus for civil servant', correct? I thought the mathematics paper for this year's PSLE was hard but I guess mathematics at SPH is even harder to comprehend when 1.25 months in extra wage is classified as no bonus in the headline!This reminds me of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, the Iraqi Information Minister during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. In his daily briefing on Iraqi television, he claimed that the enemies were defeated along the highway to Baghdad and there were no American troops in the city. However, viewers around the world could see American tanks rumbling in the background in one of his televised press briefings! Al-Sahhaf was nicknamed 'Comical Ali' for stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the facts.I guess The Straits Times has just done a 'Comical Ali' act on 27 Nov 2009.Anyway, putting the 'comical' report aside, I think all civil servants with the exception of cabinet ministers, appointment holders and top civil servants should get more than the 0.25-month bonus, which, incidentally, is subject to a cap of $750.I am sure most of the top civil servants do not mind sitting out on this year's bonus. What is $750 to these civil servants on Superscale and Ministerial Grades annual pay packages? It cannot even pay for one cooking lesson in France.The H1N1 situation has drained a lot of energy out of healthcare staff. The hunt for Mas Selamat has exhausted a lot of police officers. The highly stressed education system has probably made many teachers 'panadol-dependent' (extra strength). Surely, these rank and file civil servants deserve more 'recognition' than the 0.25-month bonus from the Public Service Division. Where Have All The Talents Gone? What do the these people have in common; Ong Pang Boon, Lim Kim San, Lee Chiaw Meng, Chua Sian Chin, Goh Keng Swee, Tony Tan Keng Yam, Lee Yock Suan, Teo Chee Hean, and Tharman Shanmugaratnam?They were all education ministers at one point in time. Whether they liked it or not, they were responsible for the implementation of the much talked about Bilingual policy.Some of these ex-ministers may not ring a bell but a couple of them were heavyweights in their times.For some strange reason, these ex-ministers did not come into the picture when MM Lee Kuan Yew made the rather startling and disturbing revelation about the Bilingual policy.The only mention of the involvement of the Education ministry came in a CNA report, 'Insistence on bilingualism in early years of education policy was wrong: MM Lee', on 17 Nov 2009. In it, MM Lee said:Successive generations of students paid a heavy price, because of my ignorance, by my insistence on bilingualism. And I wasn't helped by the ministry officials, because there were two groups - one English speaking, one Chinese teaching.We can only infer all ex-ministers of Education were included in the group of ministry officials mentioned by MM Lee.The revelation by MM Lee is startling because he does not admit to many mistakes in the governing of Singapore. It is disturbing because the Education ministry, despite being helmed by heavyweights all the time, did not seem to be in control of this Bilingual policy since day one!The teething problems with the Bilingual policy were well documented and debated over the years but somehow successive ministers did not pick them up. And if they did get the feedback, there were not much corrective action done to address the issues at all.It is hard to imagine that successive ministers, from Dr Lee Chiaw Meng (1972-1975) to Tharman Shanmugaratnam (2003-2008), could not detect the flaw in the implementation of the Bilingual policy for so long.The failure of all these past ministers to address the insistence of one man, who stood down as Prime Minister in 1990, goes against the notion the PAP Government has always put men of extraordinary abilities at the helm. It seems to me that these men were nothing more than obsequious talents.The stress on parents and children probably began in 1972 when the second language was given double weightage at PSLE. The stress exacerbated with the 'Goh Report' presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee in 1979 allowing the streaming of students according to their abilities so as to reduce 'educational wastage, low literacy and non-attainment of effective bilingualism' (libguides.nl.sg).We have talents like Dr Goh to formulate complex policies but we sorely need talents to listen to the people and to stand up against ‘wise men’ who insist on dishing out ‘bitter medicine’ at the slightest hint of trouble with little concern for the well being of an ‘overdosed’ and ‘overstressed’ populace.Did all the past Education Ministers agree with MM Lee's ignorance and insistence on bilingualism? If not, where were they when parents and students cried out in desperation over this policy the past 3 decades? How can the insistence of one man silence the cries of generations of parents and students?The painful part of this whole episode is MM Lee was 'awakened' by his own daughter and not by any ministry official. If not for MM Lee's candid revelation, I do not think such ‘admission of mistake’ would surface in a cabinet governed by ‘unquestioned’ respect.An obsequious talent is just talent gone to waste. Baby Carrots... My children love the simple things in life; doodling on recycled papers, having fun with imaginary play, relaxing on the piano, and reading Roald Dahl's books are some of the things they enjoy doing thoroughly.Three months ago, they decided to become farmers for a change. The thought of growing something that they can eat excites them. So, we bought a few packs of seeds and embarked on a journey to experience subsistence farming!The first thing my children wanted to grow was baby carrot. After three months of 'hard' work, we were all ready to harvest the juicy carrots and make ourselves a delicious salad on a lazy Sunday afternoon.We stopped salivating after pulling out the third carrot from the flower box. The baby carrots were really small or should I say microscopic. The biggest ones were only about 5-6cm in length. Our salad was rapidly fading right before our eyes.I guess we are not ready to be farmers yet. We are not giving up though. We will attempt to grow 'KangKong' the next round. Hopefully this time round we will get to eat the fruits of our labour.Well, the hard work put in by my kids did not go to waste. They gave the carrots away as farewell gifts to their classmates as another illusional 'Teach Less Learn More' school year came to an end. No Apology Needed... I am sure a whole generation of Singaporeans affected by the Bilingual policy would find it painful to read page B6 of the Home section of The Straits Times on 2 Nov 2009.In the article, 'Bilingual policy was most difficult: MM', Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said he did not know how difficult it was for a child from an English-speaking home to learn Mandarin.He went on to say:You spend time on extra tuition, and still make little progress. Many were turned off Mandarin for life.Eventually, we settled the problem in 2004 by teaching the mother tongue in the module system. Had we done this earlier, we would have had less wastage of students' time and effort, and less heartache for parents.It took the PAP Government 30 years to 'resolve' this issue. To many Singaporeans affected by this ill-conceived policy, it will take more than just time to get over the anguish, pain, and frustration they felt growing up as guinea pigs in an educational experiment that probably drained a big chunk of their youthful energy, shattered their dreams and altered their aspirations.A whole generation was affected by this Bilingual policy. It was reported that MM Lee initially believed 'intelligence was equated to language ability'. It took a confirmation from his daughter, a neurologist, to make him realise the flaw in the implementation of the policy.Was there no feedback on the ground when this Bilingual policy was introduced in the initial years? I am sure many parents must have voiced their concerns and frustrations via some feedback channels. Where did those feedback ended up the past 30 years?Although the PAP Government has wasted much of the students' time and effort in learning Mandarin, the 'by-products' that came with the implementation of this bilingual policy were more damaging. It is the stigma that many young students of that generation had to live with when they could not cope with the learning of their 'mother tongue'.It is also the inferiority complex that developed in those young children over time that caused the most heartache for the parents. The money and time they spent to help their children coped with the bilingual policy can go to waste for all they care but to see their children slowly retreating into a world of despair and depression was probably the hardest thing for them to stomach.Didn't any feedback from parents, students and teachers over the years prick anybody at the Ministry of Education, in the Parliament, or in the Cabinet? Must we wait for MM Lee's daughter to become a neurologist to awaken everyone on this ill-conceived approach to learning Mandarin?Were there no experts or neurologists around the past 30 years to advise the Cabinet?It may be easy for us to criticise such policy now. The PAP Government cannot be faulted for implementing the Bilingual policy because Singapore really needed to 'upgrade' its population to compete for investments in the early years of nationhood.What I find it unacceptable is it took the PAP 30 long years to 'correct' the issue. Furthermore, has the issue really been resolved? Many parents with school going children may disagree with that conclusion. I am one of them. When time permits, I shall blog about this.What is also disturbing was no Education Minister ever told MM Lee that there was something amiss in the implementation of the Bilingual policy over the years. It is hard to imagine no one at the Education Ministry knew there was a problem with the implementation of the policy for 30 years.Educating our young cannot be an experimental thing. There was a time when our policymakers experimented with extending primary education to level 7 or 8. Fortunately, we did not have to wait 30 years for this ill-conceived policy to be scrapped.Did we detect any sense of remorse in our leaders when they quietly dropped such ill-informed policies? Not really. The Bilingual policy wasn't wrong. It was just a 'difficult' policy to implement. There is no apology needed in a one-party rule. Let's Not Politicise LUP Anymore! The recent debate on the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) has only 2 conclusions.One, the People's Association (PA), despite being publicly funded by millions of tax dollars, remains an unreasonably partisan entity. In doing so, the association has completely lost touch with the community. To put it simply, it has lost all sense of reality.In the reality television game show, Survivor, when a participant gets voted out at the end of each episode, he or she must 'leave Exile Island immediately'.In PA's version of the 'Survivor' show, a candidate who gets voted out does not need to 'leave the island immediately'. It all depends on the colour of his or her 'skin'. If it is white, you get to come back on the 'show' to haunt and taunt the very people who booted you out. If your skin is anything but white, off you go. You must leave the 'island' immediately.That is indeed a uniquely Singapore concoction - something for the Tourism Board to think about and possibly include in its campaign of the same name.Two, public housing is no longer under public control anymore. It is now in the 'private' hands of a partisan HDB. The rationale behind HDB's practice to deal with a constituency's grassroots adviser for all upgrading programmes instead of its popularly elected opposition MP is just beyond comprehension.It is ludicrous for HDB not to acknowledge the two opposition MPs in Hougang and Potong Pasir are more 'grassroots' than the grassroots advisers appointed by PA!Both Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have been serving the residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang since 1984 and 1991 respectively. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Eric Low Siak Meng only surfaced in 2001.It is also delusional for PA to think it could fulfill its mission to 'build and to bridge communities in achieving one people, one Singapore' when it repeatedly chooses two defeated candidates over two popularly elected veterans as grassroots advisers to serve the opposition wards.A taxpayer-funded PA should not restrict its selection of grassroots advisers to just PAP members. Currently, the PA Board comprises mostly PAP members starting with the Prime Minister as Chairman. The only distinction between PA and PAP is just an alphabet letter.As we have a non-partisan and elected President now, perhaps he should be the best person to front PA to promote racial harmony and social cohesion. After all, the President has the mandate of the people as the entire electorate supposedly elects him.Last, the LUP is to rectify a design flaw in older HDB flats. It is not that difficult for anyone to explain that to the residents. In fact, HDB should be the one doing the job since those badly designed flats were built by some ‘penny-wise-pound-foolish’ civil servants in the first place. HDB should take full ownership of this problem and rectify it to the best of its capability.Going through grassroots advisers or any MP to announce or publicise the LUP will only politicise the issue further. Nothing will absolve HDB of its shortsightedness in building such ridiculous flats until the lift landing issue is resolved.Sadly, about 200 flats will not get LUP because of the high costs involved in rectifying those badly designed public housing. A Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme should be instituted for those affected residents. Super Grassroots! Faster than a speeding bullet... More powerful than a locomotive... Able to leap tall building in a single bounce... It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s SUPER GRASSROOTS!Disguised as mild-mannered citizens, these grassroots advisers are specially selected by the People’s Association (PA) to defend truth, justice, and equality. More importantly, they are there to explain complex issues like upgrading of estates.Never mind that 63% of the good citizens of Hougang had voted an 18-year incumbent, Mr. Low Thia Khiang, to represent them in the last election; a grassroots adviser with 37% support is the chosen one to unite the residents.Never mind that a majority of the brave residents of Potong Pasir has elected Mr. Chiam See Tong for the past 25 years to be their leader; a grassroots adviser who dished out $2 shark fin and abalone soup is the enlightened one to bring hope to the constituents.Never mind even if the grassroots advisers have lesser or zero experience in running these constituencies because PA probably says’ never mind’ too.Never mind that Mr. Chiam, painted to have only 5 ‘O’ level passes, had beaten Mr. Mah Bow Tan, an 8-distinction poster boy, in a one-on-one fight in the 1984 General Election; PA still insists its selection of grassroots advisers is sound.Never mind that the lift upgrading program is there to fix those badly designed flats built by a ‘penny-wise-pound-foolish’ HDB; the grassroots advisers are the only selected few who can make the affected residents understand the need to co-pay for bad design.Never mind even if Mr. Mah is now running HDB… oh well… NEVER MIND! Freshly Squeezed... The people at Channel 5 must have a wicked sense of humour. Every time I watch this trailer, I can really feel the squeeze. And yes, we all get FRESHLY squeezed to the tune of $110 a year just to watch 'free-to-air' TV programmes that are hardly 'fresh' and full of very stale 'reruns'.On top of parting with 110 bucks of our hard earn money; we are also required to squeeze every single drop of our brain juice just to comprehend the logic behind the collection and disbursement of the TV and Radio Licence (RTV) fees.To start with, all the TV and radio channels under the Mediacorp's stable are called 'free-to-air' services. That means the TV and radio signals are unencrypted. Anyone can legally receive these signals without subscription. Such services are usually funded by advertising.Here comes the first squeeze. 'Free-to-air' broadcasting in Singapore does not mean 'free-to-watch' or 'free-to-listen'. Singaporeans are required to pay an annual TV and Vehicle Radio Licence fees of $110 per household and $27 per vehicle respectively. These fees are collected in the guise of supporting unprofitable public service programming.Under the FAQ section of the Media Development Authority's website (MDA), it says:TV Licence fees help to fund selected TV programmes to ensure that our population has access to a more balanced and wider range of Public Service Broadcast (PSB) programmes. PSB programmes include current affairs, info-educational, cultural, quality drama, children's and minority language programmes... (iFAQ)That argument is sound but it needs accountability and transparency of the highest level to administer PSB programming.There are 965,000 TV licences issued in 2008 (Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, 2009). Multiply that number by $110 and that is what MDA gets every year - a whopping $106.2 million freshly squeezed from Singaporeans. If we add 851,336 Vehicle Radio Licences (Vehicle ownership as of Y2007 - www.lta.gov.sg), we are looking at a potential annual collection of $129.2 million.Here comes the second squeeze. With all that money, why are there so few PSB programmes and so many reruns? In my quest to understand the 'mystery' of the never ending reruns, I have deciphered what those station call numbers actually meant. Channel 5 means a show will repeat at least 5 times. Channel 8 means a show will repeat at least 8 times and so forth! Try counting the repeats, if you really need a pastime.So how is the $129.2 million spent? If you think the answer lies in the MDA's Annual Report, squeeze your brain juice harder. The MDA report has nothing on financial. You won't find anything on this issue in MICA's Annual Report either. It looks like such financial numbers are not 'free-to-air' after all.Interestingly enough, MDA came under fire in the 2008/09 Report of the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) for some glaring lapses including serious shortcomings in the management of PSB programmes. And by a stroke of good fortune, a brief breakdown of the usage of the RTV Licence fees was revealed in the report! So here is the elusive breakdown:* Public Service Broadcast (67%)* Expenses related to RTV licence fee collection (11%)* Industry development expenses (15%)* Reserves for future PSB & content devt funding (7%)Based on the estimated 2007/08 RTV licence fees, $86.6 million would have been spent on PSB programming, $14.2 millions on collection expense, and $19.4 on 'industry development'. There should be $9 million left in reserves.Now the question is do we feel like we have been given $86.6 million worth of 'current affairs, info-educational, cultural, quality drama, children's and minority language programmes'? I don't know about you but I feel like I have been given $86.6 million worth of advertising on TV and Radio despite all the public funding Mediacorp and other smaller radio broadcasters received from MDA.The popular show, 'The Little Nonya', was mentioned as a beneficiary of our RTV fees. Each commercial break in that show was long enough for one to cook a 3-minute instant noodle meal with a freshly brewed coffee and a toilet break thrown in! MDA has to do some 'soul' searching and revamp its management of PSB funding.It was announced on 28 Sep 2009 that Mediacorp made an operating profit of $16 million for the year ending 31 Mar 2009. Since Mediacorp is the only 'free-to-air' TV broadcaster left, we can safely assume that it is the largest recipient of our RTV fees. For some strange reason, it did not thank us in its press release for our support all these years.The 'squeeze' gets worse when you know some of our Asean neighbours are going to watch the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa for free and they do not need to pay any TV or Radio licence fee.Freshly squeezed on 5? You bet we are. Who will take care of our poor and aged? In June 2008, I brought 3 foreign journalists to visit some of the poorest people in Singapore.We visited a 62-year old male diabetic amputee living in a 1-room rental flat with no amenities like telephone or television.‘Where's the bed?’ one of the journalists asked me quietly. There was no bed. An old straw recliner chair in the middle of the room was the only thing the elderly resident could rest or sleep on. A dusty old fan spun noisily beside the chair provided some relief on a hot and humid summer night.‘I have exhausted all my CPF money. I got nothing left. I cannot afford to pay for my dialysis anymore,’ the old man recounted his story while the 4 of us listened attentively.‘The government has given up on collecting any money from me because I got nothing left. I am just waiting for my time to come,’ the old man said.‘See this eye,’ the old man pointed to one of his eyes. ‘It's gone. My good eye is also going. And you know what, when this good eye is gone, I will know what to do. No point living.’For a while, we were all taken aback by his nonchalant remark about death. We all knew the old man wasn't talking about waiting for death to come knocking on his door.‘In Singapore, there is a famous saying (Hokkien) - eh sai se buay sai pua pne,’ the old man said as he shook his head in resignation. The visitors from Taiwan needed no translation to understand that phrase.We tried to cheer him up but strangely this old man needed nothing of that. He spoke with no quiver in his voice. He laughed heartily when he recounted his younger days to us. I could detect a tinge of sadness in him but not a sense of bitterness at all. At that point, I knew he had found peace with himself and with his maker.We left the 1-room flat with a heavy heart. We truly believe the old man will end his life when his world goes dark.As I drove the visitors back to their hotel, they told me the conditions of the poor and needy in their country are not as bad as what they have seen here. At the very least, they will have a telephone, newspaper, or television to keep them occupied and connected to the outside world. Furthermore, dialysis is free for them.I became pensive after hearing that. Who will take care of our poor and needy when they grow old? Are there many of such aged and poor people in this land of 'milk and honey'?It is very sad when a person has nothing to live for in life. It is worse when that person is living in constant pain and suffering. I do not condone suicide but for some strange reason I found myself agreeing with the old man that death isn't so scary after all if the alternative is a life of misery, pain, loneliness, and suffering. Common day mixed-up a racial issue? I refer to the articles, 'Twin threats of race and religion' (ST, Aug 17).The standoff incident cited in the National Day Rally speech involving a Malay wedding and a Chinese funeral over a void deck space was unfortunate but nothing racial at all.Both events were important to the families involved. I am sure if both parties were of the same race, the standoff would still be equally intense.The commonsensical resolution to the standoff would be first-come, first-served. Most reasonable Singaporeans will understand this rule of thumb quite easily. Thus, it was gracious of the wedding party to give way to the grieving family.The chances of different races squaring off in our multi racial society over space, environment, or facility due to unreasonable behaviour or administrative error are very high. If a badminton court is double-booked by two parties of different races, is the resultant standoff going to be racial?The Government has always reminded Singaporeans the danger of playing the race card. As the incident cited in the rally speech was caused by an administrative oversight on the part of the grieving family or some other parties, it should not be brought up as an example of racial and religious fault lines.Putting a racial undertone to a common day mixed-up is unhealthy. Such incident can happen to any one regardless of race. It would be more appropriate to cite the resolution of the incident and the Malay family as good examples of what neighbourliness is all about in a densely populated and land scarce Singapore. No More Good Year... Do not expect Temasek to achieve what the PAP could not deliver, i.e. more Good Years. There is officially no more ‘good year’ at Temasek, literally and figuratively speaking.The past twelve months has not been good for Temasek in terms of investment returns and leadership succession. Having lost billions of dollars in its ill-timed investments, the SWF lost its first carefully chosen CEO-designate, Charles ‘Chip’ Goodyear as well.The succession plan to replace Mdm Ho Ching was two years in the making. Mr. Goodyear was on the radar of Temasek since 2007. It was also reported that Temasek spent more than a year wooing him. He was interviewed by board members individually and as a group.The Board of Temasek has nine members. That means Mr. Goodyear went through ten interviews, nine individual and one group. President S R Nathan met him before agreeing to his appointment too. That is eleven interviews in total.The 24-month affair, with twelve months of ‘wooing’ and eleven ‘dates’, lasted only four months in transitional union. Mr. Goodyear left Temasek before he was to start work officially on 1 Oct 2009.What went wrong with those interviews that eleven wise men could not detect the ‘strategic differences’ between Temasek and Mr. Goodyear? His departure was attributed to ‘unresolved strategic differences’ though we were not told what these differences were.However, we were told in Parliament on 18 Aug 2009 that the entire Cabinet has ‘considered very carefully and debated’ on the issue of hiring a foreigner to run Temasek before Mr. Goodyear’s appointment.With this revelation, the number of wise men involved in this issue has just mushroomed from 11 to 32.Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam also told the House that Mr. Goodyear was selected because he was assessed to share the basic values of Temasek, i.e. ‘building long-term sustainable value, not just going for quick turn of profit; commitment to maintaining a globally diversified portfolio; commitment to the basic geographical stance of Temasek.’The values listed by the Finance Minister are quite typical of any SWF. You can expect any serious candidate to share these values, especially those with the patience to go through with eleven interviews.However, when you are hiring a foreigner for the very first time to manage parts of our reserves, the interview sessions had to go beyond shared basic values. You will need to know how the candidate is going to take Temasek to the next level.The official reason given for Mr. Goodyear’s departure is ‘unresolved strategic differences’. I could only speculate three things.One, the Board knew of Mr. Goodyear’s strategic differences before he was hired and hoped to convert him later. (Does this sound like the recruitment drive of some political party –join us even if you disagree with us; we welcome diversity of views… because we will make you one of us eventually)Two, the Board and Mr. Goodyear shared the same strategic values but one party had a change of mind.Three, the Board forgot to ask Mr. Goodyear about his strategy to manage our reserves during the interviews.The public will have to content with speculations and rumours on the sudden departure of Mr. Goodyear. The publicly elected Finance Minister believes that public interest alone is not sufficient for the government to disclose more on the issue. What then is a good enough reason for the government to tell the truth?A picture may paint a thousand words but a name can sometimes tell a strange tale. The name of the ill fated CEO-designate probably sums up the misery Temasek went through the past twelve months. It was neither a ‘Cheap’ nor a ‘Good Year’ for the SWF.You may think it must be really tough for one of the most powerful women in the world to announce her resignation in public only to reverse it four months later. Not if your name in reverse means ‘very good’ in hokkien. You can’t go wrong with a name like that.Reference:ST, 06 Feb 2009 - Ho Ching to quit TemasekST, 22 Jul 2009 - Hand-picked CEO's Shock ExitST, 18 Aug 2009 – No goodwill for Goodyear MAS should have been more objective I REFER to Wednesday's report, 'MAS acts against 10 institutions'. It seems the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has learnt little from the Lehman crisis. The crux of the sale of those toxic structured products was that their profits were oversold or misrepresented while their underlying risks were undersold. In short, too much positive spin was put on the marketing of such products. In its latest report on the structured notes linked to Lehman Brothers, MAS has fallen into this 'positive spin' mode by highlighting the impressive statistics on settlement cases, while not addressing the pressing issue that most affected investors did not get any closure at all. Telling the public that 70 per cent to 80 per cent of settlement offers by the 10 institutions have been accepted is rather one-sided because the figure amounts to only about 3,280 investors. This is closure for just 33 per cent of all affected investors. There are more than 6,600 investors who are still trying to get their lives in order. The total value of the settlement offered by these institutions is $107.34 million, which is only 21 per cent of the amount invested by almost 10,000 retail investors. The actual payout is even less since not all settlements offered were accepted as of May 31. If the MAS report was an attempt to find closure for all affected parties, it should have been more objective. The good and bad statistics must be summarised for all to digest. Apart from 1,384 investors who were offered full settlement, more than 8,500 affected investors, or 86 per cent, are still on the losing end.(ST Forum, July 10, 2009) Happy Days Are Here? In the latest Happy Planet Index Report (HPI), Singapore has jumped to 49th position from a lowly 131st in 2006.And how happy are our neighbours? Malaysia moved to 33rd from 44th, Thailand dropped to 41st from 32nd, Indonesia climbed to 16th from 23rd, and Hong Kong inched to 84th from 88th.From the above comparison, our great leap of 82 positions is nothing short of a phenomenon.Here is another strange one; Burma (aka Myanmar) moved from 77th to 39th position in the latest happiness index. The Burmese are happier than us!All other Asean countries are ranked higher than us with the exception of Cambodia (80th). Vietnam is way up there at 5th position. Brunei is not covered in the survey but I guess we can safely assume Bruneians must be happy with all that oil-revenue funded subsidies.Our ministers must be happy with the vast improvement in our HPI as well. By the way, our ministers are the happiest public servants in the world. The huge leap in our happiness index will certainly make them delirious by now. Do you smell election around the corner?The Burmese generals are also the happiest soldiers in the world. One of them even got an orchid named after him. I wonder if that has something to do with the impressive jump in the country's HPI.Anyway, happiness is a state of mind. Most of the countries above Singapore in the happiness index have a lower per capita income than us. What more proof does one need that money just can't buy you talent to create happiness.Another 'state-of-mind' factor is most of these happy people know exactly where they live when they wake up every morning. Singaporeans, on the other hand, have to ponder if their constituencies are going to be around before and after each election. Now, that cannot be a happy thing, can it?So are Singaporeans really happier now than three years ago? Are Burmese happier as well? Going by the results of the HPI, I no longer understand how happiness is measured! But one thing for sure, there will be many happy generals and politicians who will use this HPI results to justify their despotic existence.By the way, the HPI was started in 2006 by nef, an 'independent think-and-do' tank. The nef website states that HPI provides a compass to measure 'what truly matters to us – our well-being in terms of long, happy and meaningful lives – and what matters to the planet – our rate of resource consumption.' Jacob Ballas Children's Garden This is one interesting garden to bring your children to explore during the school holidays. The Jacob Ballas Children's Garden is Asia's first children's garden. Admission is free. You can also choose to pay for a guided tour. For city slickers like my family, we thoroughly enjoyed the informative guided tour on 4 Jun 2009.Banana tree...Papaya up-close...Fresh gourd...Lady's finger...This fruit is huge and heavy but I cannot remember the name...Jatropha - the oil from the seeds of this plant can power your car! The Aware Scorecard The leadership tussle at Aware is over but no clear winners came out of it. What came out of the saga, though, was an affirmation that our society has indeed awakened from its inert state.Never before has the public witnessed such an intense debate on gender equality, homosexuality, and Christian fundamentalism. And I am not talking about the Internet!Stakes got higher and higher as the saga went on. Democracy and inclusiveness became the battle cry of the day.Membership at Aware grew from a few hundreds to over 3000 members within a short span of time. At $40 a piece, that’s a cool $120k in membership fee!It was a classic 'David versus Goliath' battle. Behemoth like DBS and the mainstream media came, saw, and jumped on the bandwagon for reasons beyond comprehension. The mainstream media gave the Aware issue unprecedented coverage. I counted 6 full pages of write-ups on the episode in just one issue of the Straits Times!Well the dust has settled (I hope) and the curtain is down. It's time to rate the players. I will start with the 'extras' or 'calefare' first.The one who sent the envelope with powder – 0/10Everyone has a civic duty to engage the government and society but this is definitely not the way to go. Save the powder. It will do more harm than good for any cause. Intimidation using such tactics has no place in our society.DBS - 0/10No sane organisation would reprimand its employees publicly. Was there a pressing need for DBS to chastise Miss Josie Lau via a press release? Did anyone at Temasek get a public reprimand for that untimely investment foray in late 2007 and 2008? So what catastrophic harm has Josie Lau done to DBS to deserve such a public rebuke? Save the speedy press release for those angry High Notes investors instead. Employees do not need such communication channel. For that, DBS deserves a big fat zero too.The Mainstream Media - 1/10When we have ONLY ONE major English daily and ONE TV Station here, impartial reporting is crucial. The video, pictures and write-ups accorded to the old and new Aware teams were grossly imbalanced throughout the whole saga. Anyone could easily tell whose side the media was supporting right up to the day of the Aware EGM! MICA had also found ‘the coverage (of the Aware episode) was excessive and not sufficiently balanced.’ (‘Q&A with DPM on Aware saga’, ST, 14 May 2009). Was the episode really about religion versus society? What about morality versus society? The Comprehensive Sexual Education issue was (and still is) of public interest but where was the in depth coverage on this topic? This episode has proven that the need for an alternative and independent mainstream media remains valid not matter how small our country is.Ministry of Education - 2/10It looks like parents were not the only ones who did not get their facts right on sex education in schools. Senior Minister of State for Education S. Iswaran was not too sure about the facts as well. Anyway, it doesn't matter whether the schools are autonomous or not, MOE must ensure mainstream sex education stays mainstream. You cannot teach about inclusiveness if the law says otherwise. MOE must take responsibility and teach our children well. Do not confuse them when the law says otherwise.Senior lawyer Thio Su Mien - 2/10She won the war but lost the support of the masses. The coup was well engineered but Miss Thio never knew how to win the hearts of the people she intended to influence. To be fair, the media played a large part in highlighting the possible link between religion and her campaign on morality. But does morality really need a particular religion or church to champion it? Getting more women outside her church or religion to join the campaign would be a better bet for success.LGBT - 2/10How did LGBT and Aware become inseparable in this saga? The issue about homosexuality in Singapore is not so much about persecution or oppression but it is about getting due recognition as a legitimate minority group. The government does not really care what we do behind closed door. At least that was what our political leaders said during the debate on Section 377A. LGBT would need to put its cause on the ballot to gain legitimacy. The electorate would have spoken when that happens. All other efforts are irrelevant. Teaming up with organisations like Aware to educate the public on such sensitive issues is not going to help these secular societies or the LGBT movement to grow. The Aware saga has shown how polarised the society has become over the issue on homosexuality. Until now, I am still confused what is the deal between Aware and the LGBT movement. Was there one in the first place?Old Aware Leadership (pre-coup) - 4/10The old Aware team has shown signs of being out of focus. I cannot imagine an organisation originally set up to help women find their rightful place in society now admits men into its rank. It is even thinking about giving these male members voting rights! Aware should just stay focused on helping abused, discriminated, disadvantaged girls and women. I cannot see the relevance of the inclusion of the opposite sex in the organisation in any way. Has Aware forgotten that the root of many problems faced by women since time immemorial came from the opposite sex in the first place? If Aware wants to be inclusive, perhaps it should start by changing its logo and name to reflect its intention because the public is definitely not aware of that.New Aware Leadership (post-coup) - 4/10For all the good intention the new team had, the words just did not come out right for the leaders. Miss Josie Lau and her team failed miserably on public relations. When you have the major media against you, good PR is imperative. Nonetheless, Josie Lau and her team have woken MOE up from its slumber to review all external sex education programmes in schools. She has also indirectly help Aware raised more than $120k in membership fee though her team has spent a whopping $90k in its short tenure.New Aware Leadership (post-EGM) – No grade yetMiss Dana Lam has inherited a battle weary organization with an image problem to repair. It is sad to see all the good work done by Aware being sidelined by the issue of homosexuality. Well, look on the bright side of things. Aware is technically $30k in the black. Spend the money wisely. Aware cannot afford to be mistaken as a ‘rojak’ outfit if it wishes to gain back the trust of MOE and the mainstream populace. All the best! PAP Good, Opposition Bad? I refer to the article. 'Opposition is best check against graft? MPs rebut Low's claim', (ST, 27 May 2009)I am sure many Singaporeans understand the best check against a corrupted government is to have men and women of integrity, honesty, and zero-tolerance for corruption in Parliament.However, a clean and honest political system cannot be the sole confines of any political party. No one but only time can tell if a political party is worthy to govern Singapore.Over the years, the PAP Government has realised there is value in having some opposition in Parliament. Thus, it introduced schemes like Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) and Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) to placate the growing call to open up our political landscape.But what good does it do for democracy if a NCMP or NMP cannot vote on supply bills and constitutional amendments that matter most in the governing of a country?Democracy has not taken roots in Singapore under a dominant one-party system. I am not sure which is worse – to have NCMP and NMP who cannot vote on critical issues or to have PAP MPs who vote along party line no matter how passionate they argue against any bill!On rare occasions when the Party Whip was lifted, the expected dissenting votes of outspoken PAP MPs were sorely missing.So what is a good check against graft? An elected opposition still fit that role quite nicely because only it can cast a vote of no confidence against an errant government. The rest cannot vote or will have to toe the party line.The mentality of 'PAP good, Opposition bad' borders on pure ignorance or sure arrogance on the part of the ruling party. Mollycoddled or Muddleheaded? The screaming ST headline certainly caught my attention, 'We're too mollycoddled' (ST Online, 25 May 2009). I thought to myself... well at least some PAP MPs are quite honest with themselves.Many PAP MPs are indeed too mollycoddled. They hide under the coattails of heavyweight ministers in General Elections, enjoy walkover in GRCs, get all the support from the well-funded Residents' Committees, get all the coverage from the mainstream media, take credits for helping the needy with taxpayers' money, etc, etc, etc.As I read on, MP Sam Tan wasn't talking about himself or his party colleagues. He was talking about Singaporeans!In Sam's world, Singaporeans are morphing into 'softies' because they are too protected by the Government. According to him, Singaporeans 'see Government help as an entitlement, something that they should tap on as a first port of call, rather than a last resort.'In Sam's words:"We have become accustomed to the largesse of an efficient MCYS whose many helping hands are indeed everywhere doing everything for us – they make sure the poor children do not have to pay fees, the needy elderly have enough food, and even well-to-do children who do not care of their parents have VWOs to turn to, when they want to shunt these old folks out of their homes."In Sam's world, the recession is worse on paper, but much less on the ground because people are still spending. And the reason why people are spending is because the PAP Government has done too much recession cushioning thus giving Singaporeans a false sense of security. In Sam's words again:"So, we have become “practiced” at the craft of recession-cushioning. Each time the economy shows signs of slowing down, we have the NTUC and e2i coming out at the forefront to job match, get training, reduce retrenchments. We have MND pump priming with infrastructure projects, we have of course the MCYS and its numerous help schemes."Well, now that I have read the entire article and MP Sam Tan's speech, let's get things straightened out.First, there are people out there who, without a helping hand to pull them out of their hellholes again and again, will never get their lives or the lives of their children back on track. Dishing constant help to such people is definitely not mollycoddling especially in such unprecedented times. One of the responsibilities of an elected MP is to ensure the important helping hand is always there when needed by such resident in his constituency.By the way, MP Sam Tan’s colleagues in the other contested wards would have no hesitation ‘mollycoddling’ the needy because they know very well what general elections are all about on the ground.Second, the 'largesse of an efficient MCYS whose many helping hands are indeed everywhere doing everything for us' is a misconception. MCYS has never known to have a spirit of generosity. The ministry has a deep-rooted fear of the needy developing a 'crutch mentality' when too much help is given to them. Surely, MP Tan must have witnessed in Parliament how swiftly MCYS put down MPs who tried to ask for a few dollars more for poor people on the Public Assistance Scheme!Furthermore, it is the largesse of VWOs, which comprises tireless and selfless people, that has created a rub-off effect on MCYS. The ministry, sadly, is running like a bureaucratic funding machine lacking in compassion. It operates on the notion that if the people can make do with less, why not. Perhaps, MCYS should work on a notion that if it can do more for the poor, why not. Then, and only then, the largesse of MCYS would be more believable.Last, Singaporeans are definitely not mollycoddled. If it were so, the breadlines all over the country should be getting shorter. There would be less foreign workers to compete for jobs. And ‘empathy’ would not be the buzzword for our civil service to adopt.On the contrary, it is the slate of ‘walkover’ MPs in the PAP Government that are too mollycoddled to the point that most of them have become muddleheaded. Money Can't Buy You Talent Temasek's exit from Bank of America (BoA) as reported in the Straits Times on 19 May 2009 is really bewildering.Some probable reasons why Temasek chose to cash out were suggested in another article, 'Temasek should clear the air', by Ignatius Low. One of the reasons was Temasek did not end up with what it paid for. Its investment in Merrill Lynch ended up with BoA after the two entities merged.Although BoA may not be the preferred investment, it was definitely in better shape than Merrill when the financial crisis hit. Otherwise, Merrill would be taking over BoA and not the other way. Thus, ending up with BoA is a blessing for Temasek because it may end up with nothing as in the case for investors of Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual.It is difficult to understand why a long-term investor like Temasek was willing to stick with a dud investment like ABC Learning Centres right to the very end and yet it cannot exercise a little bit more patience with a US government-backed entity like BoA? There is a real good chance that Temasek may recoup all its investment in Merrill by the end of the year.Has the Board of Temasek been given an objective assessment of the financial situation in the United States? Was it that difficult to conclude from the various news sources that BoA would not be nationalised? Was the nationalization issue a push factor for the board to dump BoA? The US Government has stated clearly that it will not nationalise BoA even though it is technically the largest shareholder of the bank. What more assurance does the board need?I agree with Mr. Low that 'these are, after all, extraordinary time, and so extraordinary outcomes - and losses - will be expected.' However, the untimely foray into Merrill and the ill-timed exit from BoA were not that extraordinary in nature. I am sure any one who dabbles in stocks would have made such bad calls before, i.e. buy high and sell low!But the Government has raised the benchmark for performance for Temasek and GIC to the highest level because we were told that it had put in place extraordinary men to safeguard our reserves. It does not go down well with Singaporeans when extraordinary men make very ordinary and incomprehensible decisions. As reported in the Straits Times, the latest investment move by the crème-de-la-crème in Temasek has resulted in record-breaking losses of between US$2.3 billion to US$4.6 billion of our precious reserves.This financial crisis has revealed many things. Among them is that men with extraordinary salaries may not have extraordinary talents at all. The number of high-flying CEOs that came crashing down in the US is a revelation. Money just can’t buy you talent. The Aware Scorecard The leadership tussle at Aware is over but no clear winners came out of it. What came out of the saga, though, was an affirmation that our society has indeed awakened from its long inert state.Never before has the public been exposed to issues on gender equality, homosexuality, and Christian fundamentalism in such an intense manner. Stakes got higher and higher as the saga went on. Democracy and inclusiveness became the battle cry of the day. Membership at Aware grew from a few hundreds to over 3000 members within a short span of time!It was a classic 'David versus Goliath' battle. Behemoth like DBS and the mainstream media came, saw, and jumped on the bandwagon for reasons beyond comprehension. The mainstream media gave the Aware issue unprecedented coverage. I counted 6 full pages of write-ups on the episode just in one issue of the Straits Times!Well the dust has settled (I hope) and the curtain is down. It's time to rate the players. I will start with the 'extras' or 'calefare' first.The one who sent the envelope with powder – 0/10Everyone has a civic duty to engage the government and society but this is definitely not the way to go. Doing this will not help any cause. It will do more harm than good. Intimidation using such tactics has no place in our society.DBS - 0/10No sane organisation would reprimand its employees publicly. Was there a pressing need for DBS to chastise Miss Josie Lau via a press release? Did Ho Ching get a mouthful from her boss for that untimely investment foray in late 2007 and 2008? So what catastrophic harm has Josie Lau done to DBS to deserve such a public rebuke? For that, DBS deserves a big fat zero too.The Mainstream Media - 1/10When we have ONLY ONE mainstream English daily and ONE TV Station here, impartial reporting is crucial. The video, pictures and write-ups accorded to the old and new Aware teams were grossly imbalanced throughout the whole saga. Anyone could easily tell whose side the media was supporting right up to the day of the Aware EGM! MICA had also found ‘the coverage (of the Aware episode) was excessive and not sufficiently balanced.’ (‘Q&A with DPM on Aware saga’, ST, 14 May 2009).Senior lawyer Thio Su Mien - 2/10She won the war but lost the support of the masses. The coup was well engineered but Miss Thio never knew how to win the hearts of the people she intended to influence. To be fair, the Straits Times played a large part in bringing religion into her campaign on morality. Does morality really need a particular religion to champion it?LGBT - 2/10The LGBT people should not use Aware to further their cause. The issue about homosexuality in Singapore is not so much about persecution or oppression but it is about getting due recognition as a legitimate minority group. Seriously, what we do behind closed door, nobody cares, not even the government. This group would need to put its cause on the ballot to gain legitimacy. Getting a Gay Member of Parliament elected would be a good start. The electorate would have spoken when that happens. All other efforts are irrelevant. Going through organisations like Aware to further such sensitive issues is not going to help these secular societies or the LGBT movement to grow. The Aware saga has shown how polarised the society has become over the issue on homosexuality.Old Aware Leadership (pre-coup) - 4/10The old Aware team has shown signs of being out of focus. I cannot imagine an organisation set up to help women find their rightful place in society now admits men into its rank. It is even thinking about giving these male members voting rights! Aware should just stay focused on helping abused, discriminated, disadvantaged girls and women. I cannot see the relevance of the inclusion of the opposite sex in the society in any way. Has Aware forgotten that the root of many problems faced by women since time immemorial came from the opposite sex in the first place? If Aware wants to be inclusive, perhaps it should start by changing its logo to reflect its intention.New Aware Leadership (post-coup) - 4/10For all the good intention the new team had, the words just did not come out right for the leaders. Miss Josie Lau and her team failed miserably on public relations. When you have the mainstream media against you, good PR is imperative. Nonetheless, Josie Lau and her team have woken MOE up from its slumber to ensure mainstream education stays that way, i.e. mainstream. It doesn't matter whether the schools are autonomous or not. That's the way society functions - mainstream views will always take precedent. Which country would the Minister like to govern? Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam, said the Public Order Act seeks to optimally balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety, security and stability. He said in Parliament:“Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in?"Before Singaporeans answer these questions, perhaps the Minister would like to answer this - which country in our region would he like to govern?Which nationality can tolerate shortsighted policies such as the highly punitive 'Stop at two' population containment program that caused its fertility to fall below replacement level?Which nationality has to put up with controversial population growth policies like the 'Have three or more, if you can afford it' program that came with a eugenic 'Graduate Mother Scheme' to improve the quality of its breed as well?Which nationality has suffered silently under the highly discriminatory 'Education Streaming' policy that subjected many of its young children to unnecessary stress at a tender age and possibly a lifetime stigma of being classified as underachievers?Which nationality has allowed its government to quietly discontinued half-baked policies with no apology tendered?So which country would the Minister like to govern? I am sure the Minister’s answer to my question would be Singapore. Where else in this world can the Minister find such a supportive and 'easy' group of people to govern and be paid handsomely in the process as well?And which country would I rather be in? My answer to the Minister’s questions is the same. This is probably the only thing we can agree on.So back to the question of have we gotten the balance between political freedom and public order right? For being a responsible, supportive, and constructive electorate all these years, the answer to this question is an emphatic no.Do Singaporeans deserve to be treated like children? Do we deserve to have our rights as citizens restricted further though we had never shut down the airport, paralyzed the city or even endangered the lives of our politicians and fellow citizens since we became a nation in 1965?I believe the political marriage of convenience between Singaporeans and the PAP is no longer mutually beneficial. Over the past 44 years of nationhood, the party has eroded the power of people bit by bit. Today we are a nation paralyzed with fear, real and imaginary.This paranoid government must grow up and recognise that nation building requires mutual respect of the highest degree between the citizens and the elected authority. So far, Singaporeans have given the government all the respect it had craved for. The Public Order Act is not the kind of respect the citizens expects in return.The people of Singapore must reclaim their rights and respect at the next poll. A 'White Curtain' has descended... The passing of the Public Order Act (POA) on 13 April 2009 is a sad day for freedom and democracy in Singapore. The Act, in the guise of maintaining public safety and order, will slowly erase any semblance of individual freedom guaranteed under our Constitution.Winston Churchill, in his speech on 5 March 1946, said an 'Iron Curtain' had descended across Europe just to warn the world about the increasing influence and control of Soviet Union on Central and Eastern Europe. A similar 'White Curtain' has descended on Singapore too. Singaporeans should be warned that the POA will restrict our basic citizen rights further.To the outside world, Singapore is seen as a 'clean and white' country full of law-abiding citizens. But behind the 'White Curtain' lies a nation legislated beyond comprehension, silenced and highly strung.Under the POA, an illegal 'assembly' could mean a gathering of only ONE person and a 'procession' could comprise just TWO! Sadly, the highest paid Government in the world has also the lowest tolerance for dissent.The new 'Move On' power now allows the police to ask a person to leave a premise in the interests of 'public safety, public order, and the protection of the rights and freedom of other people'. What about the rights and freedom of the poor guy slapped with the 'Move On' order? Doesn't that deserve protection too? The right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly guaranteed under Article 14 of our Constitution apparently does not apply to that poor chap if the police think otherwise.To complete the whitewash of our rights, a public-spirited citizen can no longer film any law enforcement activity even if that person witnessed a serious case of police brutality. It is sad that justice for victims like Ian Tomlinson and Oscar Grant could never happened behind this White Curtain.Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam, in taking the POA, said in Parliament: "The approach is to seek the optimal balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety security and not affecting stability. Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in? The answer to these questions would be the answer to the main question I asked."Have we really gotten that balance right? It seems to me that this Government likes to pick and choose any country in turmoil to justify the need to restrict civil liberty on its own citizens without first understanding the cause of the unrest overseas. Does it mean that any outbreak of protest in this world must impel Singapore to tighten its public order laws?The event unfolding in Thailand is not about lax public order laws. It is about the need to uphold democracy. NCMP Sylvia Lim said in Parliament: "If there is a lesson to be learnt from Thailand, it is about upholding democracy. It is not about the consequences of having weak public order laws because the Thai people felt cheated. The Thai police and army are not weaklings either. They are more battle-hardened than our equivalent as they have been fighting Muslim separatists for many years. Many of these security people are just sympathetic to the 'Red shirt' cause. Does the PAP government think that slapping a 'move on' order on 100,000 Thais will work? The Singapore Government should not take advantage of the situation in Thailand to justify the implementation of draconian laws to inhibit the basic rights of citizens further. The Thais may be exercising their basic human rights to the extreme. On the other end, Singaporeans, who have done nothing remotely close to what the Thais are doing, are being penalised further for nothing. As long as this government respect and uphold democracy, the problem we are seeing now in Thailand will not happen here. But if the government wants to tinker with individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems."So has Singapore really opened up in recent years?Mr Shanmugam said the opening of Speakers' Corner in 2000 was the start of the process by the Government to liberalise the political space.The Minister went to say that restrictions were also lifted on speeches by elected MPs at community events albeit with conditions attached. Constituency activities organised by MPs and held in the constituency were also exempted from police permits - again with conditions attached.Indoor political activities are now exempted from permits too. You can even demonstrate at Hong Lim Park provided there is no community event going on there.And finally (drum roll please), the outright ban on party political films was lifted on 23 Mar 2009.Apart from the Speakers' Corner experiment, which was a baby step in the right direction, there is nothing worth shouting about in the 'opening up' of our political space so far. Most of the previously banned activities are harmless and should not be restricted in the first place.And remember, it is technically a 'procession' when you go out walking with your date. If you are alone and loitering is your past-time, you could be deemed as an illegal 'assembly'.Strange but that is life behind the 'White Curtain' after 13 April 2009. Films Act - A Class Act to follow... I saw this DVD on sale at some supermarket. I have seen books on Lee Kuan Yew but this is the first time I have seen a DVD on him.The recently amended Films Act permits a political documentary film under the following conditions:'without any animation and composed wholly of an accurate account depicting actual events, persons (deceased or otherwise) or situations, but not a film -(i) wholly or substantially based on unscripted or '"reality" type programmes; or(ii) that depicts those events, persons or situations in a dramatic way;'I wonder if this political film complies with the above conditions. I wonder if there is any animation in it? What about any moving newspaper cuttings to dramatize the tumultuous events of our history? Well, I guess the answer is available for $24.90.For $24.90, I can eat lunch for 5 days. I can bring my family to McDonald's for dinner. I can also make the MINDS-operated car wash workers really happy with snacks and munchies to keep them going under the hot sun.For that same amount, I can also spare myself from getting into trouble. Big trouble to be specific - up to $100,000 fine or up to 2 years of imprisonment if I were to make a political documentary that did not comply with the amended Films Act. I assume the above DVD must have complied else it wouldn't be put on sale. Shucks, I need $24.90 to find that out!Life is full of hard choices, isn't it? Which will you choose, to clear your head or fill your stomach? For my kids, it's definitely McDonald's! Dendrobium Thein Sein? Give me a break! On 18 Mar 2009, it was reported in the Straits Times that Myanmar Prime Minister, General Thein Sein, came to Singapore for a 2-day official visit.Engaging the military junta of Myanmar has proven to be a tough act for Asean since Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest in 1989. Naming an orchid after a member of this ruthless regime is definitely not going to make the junta any less despotic. This gesture by the Singapore Government is a hard act to fathom.Flowers are powerful symbols of love, peace, remembrance and appreciation; almost everything the junta is not associated with!The military rulers of Myanmar refused to give up power peacefully in the 1990 General Election, led a bloody crackdown on unarmed monks in 2007, and delayed aids to survivors of last year's deadly Cyclone Nargis.Engaging a despotic regime in a talk is good enough but to go the length and 'appease' such mean and heartless leaders is just too much for me to swallow. Can anyone imagine a flower named after leaders like Hilter? For that, the Botanic Garden scores a perfect 10 on 'dumb things to name an orchid after'.And to the civil servant who suggested this act to honour the General, please google the web for news on Aung San Suu kyi, Myanmar monks, and victims of Cyclone Nargis. Then take a look in the mirror and tell yourself you have done the right thing. Can you do that with a straight face? Vintage Buffett... Warren Buffett, Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK), in his Annual Letter to shareholders, was incredibly frank and funny in his assessment of 2008.On acknowledging his bad investments:During 2008 I did some dumb things in investments. I made at least one major mistake of commission and several lesser ones that also hurt. I will tell you more about these later. Furthermore, I made some errors of omission, sucking my thumb when new facts came in that should have caused me to re-examine my thinking and promptly take action.On sensing opportunities in the auto insurance business:As we view GEICO’s current opportunities, Tony and I feel like two hungry mosquitoes in a nudist camp. Juicy targets are everywhere.On hiring a good Foreign Talent:Ajit came to Berkshire in 1986. Very quickly, I realized that we had acquired an extraordinary talent. So I did the logical thing: I wrote his parents in New Delhi and asked if they had another one like him at home. Of course, I knew the answer before writing. There isn’t anyone like Ajit.On the home mortgage crisis:I described it as involving “borrowers who shouldn’t have borrowed being financed by lenders who shouldn’t have lent.”On home ownership:Putting people into homes, though a desirable goal, shouldn’t be our country’s primary objective. Keeping them in their homes should be the ambition. On admitting a wrong investment call:Without urging from Charlie or anyone else, I bought a large amount of ConocoPhillips stock when oil and gas prices were near their peak. I in no way anticipated the dramatic fall in energy prices that occurred in the last half of the year. I still believe the odds are good that oil sells far higher in the future than the current $40-$50 price. But so far I have been dead wrong. Even if prices should rise, moreover, the terrible timing of my purchase has cost Berkshire several billion dollars.I made some other already-recognizable errors as well. They were smaller, but unfortunately not that small. During 2008, I spent $244 million for shares of two Irish banks that appeared cheap to me. At yearend we wrote these holdings down to market: $27 million, for an 89% loss. Since then, the two stocks have declined even further. The tennis crowd would call my mistakes “unforced errors.”On the complexities of derivatives:Improved “transparency” – a favorite remedy of politicians, commentators and financial regulators for averting future train wrecks – won’t cure the problems that derivatives pose. I know of no reporting mechanism that would come close to describing and measuring the risks in a huge and complex portfolio of derivatives. Auditors can’t audit these contracts, and regulators can’t regulate them. When I read the pages of “disclosure” in 10-Ks of companies that are entangled with these instruments, all I end up knowing is that I don’t know what is going on in their portfolios (and then I reach for some aspirin).On accountability:I both initiated these positions and monitor them, a set of responsibilities consistent with my belief that the CEO of any large financial organization must be the Chief Risk Officer as well. If we lose money on our derivatives, it will be my fault.On BRK's Annual Meeting:If you decide to leave during the day’s question periods, please do so while Charlie is talking.During the Annual Meeting, products of Berkshire's subsidiaries are put on sale at special prices for shareholders.Last year, the 31,000 people who came to the meeting did their part, and almost every location racked up record sales. But you can do better. (A friendly warning: If I find sales are lagging, I lock the exits.)On taking questions at the meeting:Neither Charlie nor I will get so much as a clue about the questions to be asked. We know the journalists will pick some tough ones and that’s the way we like it.And finally (drum roll please)...Charlie and I cannot promise you results. But we can guarantee that your financial fortunes will move in lockstep with ours for whatever period of time you elect to be our partner. We have no interest in large salaries or options or other means of gaining an “edge” over you. We want to make money only when our partners do and in exactly the same proportion. Moreover, when I do something dumb, I want you to be able to derive some solace from the fact that my financial suffering is proportional to yours.Berkshire Hathaway Class A share closed at US$78,600 a share on 27 Feb 2009. When Warren Buffett bought into the company, it was trading at $12 a share. Trust Without Transparency? When asked if he could detail the process and what was discussed in the lead up to the President's approval of the draw down of our past Reserves, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam replied that he was not sure the details were relevant.He said, 'This is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge. Do you trust them? Have they make decisions wisely? Has this Government been acting responsibly? That is ultimately what has been and will be the strength of the system.' (ST, 6 Feb 2009)I was taken aback by this statement alone - 'This is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge.' Are Singaporeans expected to place complete and unquestioning trust in the individuals running the Government?Trust, in the absence of transparency, is a tough act to do. Transparency breeds trust. And in trust, transparency flourishes. These two traits are intertwined. Take one out and the other would be weakened.Complete trust without seeing, touching, smelling or hearing does exist. That is what most people called faith. Complete faith is only accorded to someone divine and not some earthly mortals.Does this government see itself in the same league as our maker; divine, beyond reproach and demanding absolute trust?Absolute power is indeed intoxicating. It can induce a one-party government into harbouring such a ludicrous thought, isn't it?