https://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2...ting-agent-me/
Counting agent me
“At the last election, we had only thirty-something polling agents and counting agents,” said Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan at a briefing on Polling Day. He was smiling. The party office was full to overflowing.
I hadn’t planned to be a counting agent. Besides having an Australian visitor in town, for weeks my friends were hatching plans to hold election-watch parties. Eventually, nothing much came of those plans and so when at around 4 p.m., a text message came to me from Vincent Wijeysingha appealing for help to round up more counting agents, I was able to volunteer.
“How many do you need?” I texted him back.
“We need about 100. So send as many as u can,” came the reply. I later learned they were about 40 short as at mid-afternoon.
With a flurry of text messages, I rustled up a significant number from among my friends, and via the gay and lesbian network. It was amazing how many people said Yes without hesitation, jumping into taxis to make their way to a part of Singapore few have ever been to (the party headquarters is really out of the way). At least one friend cancelled dinner plans to come in. This lot may not be representative of Singaporeans generally, but at least among this section of Singaporeans the climate of fear is becoming a thing of the past.
The SDP was not the only party with a surfeit of volunteers, albeit a surfeit that poured in only when they realised ridiculously late in the day that they were short. I know for a fact from Sylvia Lim, chair of the Workers’ Party, that they too had more than enough polling and counting agents well before Nomination Day.
* * * * *
I shall take this opportunity to describe what happens at a counting centre, based on my first-hand experience.
After the briefing and the oath-taking (secrecy under the law) at the party HQ, three of us arrived at our assigned counting centre just before 8 p.m, to find three more volunteers for SDP already there. That made a total of six, the maximum quota for this counting centre. Shortly after passing through a security check to enter the hall, volunteers #7 and #8 came but were not allowed in because the quota had been filled. Wow, from being short of volunteers four hours earlier, the party had more than they could use!
The People’s Action Party’s six counting agents arrived after us, all dressed in party white, almost marching in like an infantry platoon — not like us, some in workclothes, one in shorts, complete with satchel bags and cups of sugar-cane juice. Ah, but beneath the ragtag appearance, we were armed with pens, notebooks and calculators. I wonder if the the PAP guys were surprised to see a full contingent for the SDP unlike previous years.
At around 8:30 p.m. the ballot boxes arrived from the six polling stations this counting centre would serve. The boxes (about three or four) from each polling station were brought to one of six assigned tables. Thus, each table would count the votes of one polling station, with an average of 3,000 – 4,000 ballots.
The tables were about 2 metres square — larger than a king-sized bed — around which was seated a table chief and four counting staff. Upon instruction by the officer presiding over the entire centre, the ballot boxes were shown to us, so we could verify that the seals which had been affixed at the polling stations at the close of the voting day were not broken.
The boxes were then opened and the contents poured out onto the centre of the table. Counting agents were free to move around to look over the shoulders of the counting staff. However, we could not speak to the staff, nor touch any ballot paper. If we wished to dispute the sorting of any ballot, we had to take it up with the table chief.
Generally, the counting process was very efficient, with all tables following a standardised procedure. There were several rounds of counting, with each block of sorted ballots rechecked and re-counted by another member of the staff.
Most of the time, the voter’s choice was obvious. Where the ballot paper had unusual markings, the counter would pass it to the table chief who would show it to a counting agent from each party and announce his decision as to how to treat that ballot. As counting agents, we could offer our views but his decision would be final.
Here are some of the things I remember coming across:
The vast majority of voters marked their ballot paper with a cross as in example 1. A few marked their ballot paper with a tick, but so long as the rest of the ballot paper was clean, the tick would be accepted as sufficiently indicative of the voter’s intention. Other than such clean markings, counting staff would pass the ballot paper to the table chief for adjudication.
Table chiefs routinely rejected ballots where any part of the cross or tick crossed the boundary line, such as example 3. Where the voter made more than one marking, as in example 4, it was always rejected by the table chiefs at the counting centre where I attended.
However, I later exchanged notes with my friend who was assigned to a different counting centre, and she told me that at that place, there was at least one incident when a ballot paper marked like example 4 was awarded as a vote for the “triangle and star” party. The table chief’s reasoning was that by law, the voter should mark his intention with a cross and since the cross was placed against the “triangle and star” party, the vote was given to it.
Occasionally I saw ballot papers with all sorts of strange markings, but so long as there was only one marking that did not cross the boundary (e.g. examples 5 and 6 above) the table chief would treat it as a valid vote.
More strange markings I came across, routinely accepted by table chiefs as valid votes.
I saw one ballot that looked like example 9, with two ticks. It was accepted as valid. There was one ballot that looked like example 10. It too was treated as a valid vote for the ” triangle and star” party despite my protest, the reasoning being that the voter only marked one half of the ballot paper and left the other half clean.
While watching another table, I came across another ballot rather similar to example 10, shown here as example 11. It too was accepted as a vote in favour of the “triangle and star party”.
However, the counting staff and table chiefs were scrupulously fair. For every “go to hell” ballot there were at least fifty more with the faintest of scratches, as in example 12. Again, they would use the same rule — so long as the single marking stayed within one box, they accepted it as a valid vote. The layman might think however that the marking was accidental, the result of a pen falling onto the paper or slipping out of the voter’s hand. Then again, there might well be some people who, liking neither candidate, deliberately let a dropping pen from a height of 40 cm make the choice for them. Who is to say that is not a valid decision matrix?
* * * * *
Democracy is a seductive concept in the abstract. Look too closely and you might see the whole thingamajig flying by the seat of its pants.
Factually or half truths to sidestep actual salaries by PM and ministers? Why the lack of transparency?
Terry Xu by Terry Xu 17 September 2018in Government, Opinion3 min read
https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/20...and-ministers/
In a post published on the Factually website, the Singapore government seeks to address two “falsehoods”, one being the Prime Minister gets $4.5 million in annual salary and it is not upfront about how ministerial salaries are calculated.
The post on Factually is correct on both counts to say that the government is upfront with how the ministerial salaries are calculated and that the Prime Minister is not paid $2.2 million as base salary.
In the two review reports (2012 and 2017) on ministerial salaries, the Singapore Government clearly states the amount of salary the Prime Minister and the political appointment holders get annually and how the figures are derived.
As for the PM’s pay, the $2.2 million is a total of 12+7 months of bonuses, (12 months salary, 13th-months bonus, AVC and a six-month national bonus instead of three months as the PM does not get a performance bonus), which works out to be $110,000 per month or $1.43 million a year for his basic annual salary. So it is also right to say that PM Lee doesn’t get $4.5 million a year.
But what the post does not address or trying to sidestep with its half-truths, is the reluctance by the Government or the Prime Minister to reveal the total amount of bonuses received by the ministers.
Non-constituency Member of Parliament, Leon Perera had asked Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in a written question in September’s Parliamentary sitting:
To ask the Prime Minister in each of the past five years, what has been the bonus paid to Cabinet Ministers in terms of (i) the average total number of bonus months (ii) the highest total number of bonus months paid to an individual Minister and (iii) the lowest total number of bonus months paid to an individual Minister.
In PM Lee’s reply to the NCMP, he merely revealed the average performance bonus received by the political appointment holders over the past five years. Noting that the bonuses are computed with the four components, PM Lee failed to reveal the amount of National Bonuses received by the political appointment holders which then can be used to calculate the total number of bonuses for the past five years.
So to find out the total annual bonuses that the PM and other political appointment holders get, TOC calculated the national bonus based on the KPIs set to determine the bonus months to be paid out.
Based on the calculated figures, we see that the political holders get at least 10 months of bonus on top of their annual salary for the past five years. And note that the Performance bonus is an average so some may get more.
As for the Prime Minister, as he is not paid performance bonus but instead given a maximum of 12 months instead of 6 months of National bonus, this means he would get 13 months of bonus in 2017 instead of 11.85 months like the other ministers and political appointment holders.
Which translate to PM Lee getting about 2.75 million in 2017 (25 months) and 2.83 million in 2013 (25.75). (Note that the basic pay has increased due to adjustment with the top 1000 earners)
But as much as the PM may be reluctant to share who is being paid the highest amount of bonus, we ought to have complete transparency in the matter and full disclosure, as salaries of the Cabinet are being borne out of public monies.
https://www.facebook.com/leonperera7...21826174642219
A busy weekend, with two walkabouts at Serangoon Avenue 4! Heard different perspectives on local and national issues from many constituents. There’s been much discussion about the need for the Workers’ Party to put forward alternative policies.
There has been less discussion about how the government should respond to such alternative policies. WP MPs have been conveying alternative policy ideas inside and outside of Parliament for years. There are a few possible ways the government can respond to these ideas:
𝐚. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐝. 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲.
Of course, many voices may have contributed to prompting that policy change, not only the WP voice. But it would be good for the public to know when and by what pathway such changes happen, through fair media reporting and good public commentary.
𝐛. 𝐀𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞-𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚, 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝.
Data and evidence can be subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. For example, the government conducts many public opinion surveys using state funds. I have raised in Parliament the question of why all of these surveys are not automatically published for use by civil society, scholars and alternative parties to better formulate alternative policy ideas.
Of course, sometimes evidence overwhelmingly suggests that something is a bad idea. But sometimes the evidence is inconclusive. The result of a new policy idea can rarely be guessed with complete certainty, unlike outcomes in the natural sciences. There can be different views about future outcomes of the same policy that are consistent with the available evidence. We ought to acknowledge that. Let’s have more transparency about underlying evidence and data.
𝐜. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐭.
This is what the Workers’ Party called for when it suggested a randomized controlled trial for the impact of smaller form class sizes in schools, through a Parliamentary adjournment motion in 2017.
𝐝. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰.
The WP had mooted an alternative policy approach to POFMA, namely that correction directives be approved by judges (among other things). If you read the way the Minister responded to this alternative idea in the excerpt below, do you think that the alternative was seriously considered and addressed?
One hopes that alternative ideas are debated vigorously in Parliament with respect to options (a), (b) and (c) above, and not (d).
-—————————————————————————–
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to pose a clarification to the Law Minister. I had intended originally to pose a clarification to Mr Cedric Foo. But I think in light of the Law Minister’s comments at this point, I will just pose some clarification to him.
It is quite simple. Is it the position of the Law Minister and the Government that our Courts could not be sufficiently resourced, structured, if necessary a new process, a new expedited process created, if necessary a new process for assigning judges created, additional capacity created? Is it impossible?
Is it inconceivable that this could be done in the future in order to issue interim prima facie decisions in urgent, time-sensitive cases under POFMA? Is that impossible by definition?
By definition is that impossible in the future if we take all these steps to put in the resources to put in the process, if necessary create a special of class of judges, so on, so forth. Is that impossible by definition?
And I would add that in other jurisdictions to the best of my knowledge, and I may stand corrected, in other jurisdictions, for example, in some states in the US, it is my understanding that an arrest warrant has to be approved by a judge under certain circumstances.
These arrest warrants are very time-sensitive and the judge has to make a decision on the balance of probabilities, whether to arrest the person. That is a serious matter. Whether to arrest a person in extremely time-sensitive circumstances. Sometimes, late at night the law enforcers will go and see the judge. Because that system has been created and structured and resourced in such a way that it is possible. So, that is my clarification.
Mr K Shanmugam: A number of points here. The first of which is this. Let us take the sequence, the process of these things. First, you got to draft something and file in Court. We are now talking about the Select Committee’s recommendation to do something within a matter of hours. You got to draft and file.
You got to put aside some time for that. After that, you must find the judge. Let us say in your scenario, we have a High Court Judge who does nothing but sits there 24/7 because it can break out anytime, and will be available as soon as the Government calls. It is technically not impossible.
Of course, you can have a Judge who does nothing but this, and no other cases. Because if he is hearing a case, he cannot break the case and come and listen to you. He has to go to finish the case for the sitting, until lunch time or until the evening, depending on the scenario.
Duty Judges hear their cases too. So, we are saying, if supposing something has happened and I want to stop the communication within the next two hours, do you think it is possible by going to Court?
Then, there are further factors which have further levels of uncertainty. You file, you go before a Judge and you say, “Look, Judge, it is so urgent that I am not going to serve this on Google, Facebook or whoever, wherever it is spreading. I just need an urgent order, ex parte, and then later on I will serve”. Sometimes, the Judge may agree but the Judge may also disagree.
Supposing he disagrees, then it takes a further length of time. The decision maker, the person who has the facts might take one view and the responsibility for dealing with that situation also rests with the Executive.
Have you not known of instances where within 24 hours, there have been riots and people have been killed? Supposing the Judge says, “I think I would like to hear the other side, urgent as it is”.
It has happened. Urgent ex parte applications have been heard on a contested basis. Any of these are possible. The Judge could give you ex parte. But he could also ask for contested ex parte.
He could ask the other side to turn up quickly. And if he does that, and the other side turns up, and then, they say, “We do not have time to file an affidavit but we want to know the basic facts before we can argue. We need until this evening; we need until tomorrow morning.” Once you set up a Court process, then, you must allow for the due process.
So, my point to you, Mr Perera is, having now heard this explanation, is it your position that definitionally, it is possible, every single time, whenever we want it to be dealt with urgently, that it can be dealt with urgently, in a matter of hours? Is that your position?
Mr Speaker: Mr Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Law Minister for his explanation. And I think that there are a number of points that he made which relate to judicial capacity, for want of a better term, and process. I would imagine that, based on what the Law Minister has said, he can envisage, that the necessary capacity can be created to deal with such a caseload, based on what Law Minister said.
Mr K Shanmugam: Possible, if the Judge does nothing else but waits for the applications. That was what I said.
Mr Leon Perera: Yes. So, I would take it that necessary capacity can be created. We can create a special class of Courts, duty Judges. Capacity is a question of resource planning. So, with sufficient resources applied, necessary capacity can be created.
Next, there is an issue of process. And I think the Law Minister alluded to the fact that while the Government will have to word the submission, even an ex parte submission to the Court, and that is time consuming, and while this is going on, the clock is ticking away and the falsehood is viralising and so on.
But within the Ministry, or the Statutory Board or agency, the civil servants also have to word the submission to the Minister or communicate with the Minister.
Can we not create a process whereby the communication, the form and the format of communication between the civil servant and the Minister, is very similar to the form and format of communication between the Government and the Court in those very time-sensitive cases, to obtain an initial prima facie decision?
So, my point there is that I think, at the level of process, a process can be created to minimise the time lag from Ministry to Court. I would put it to the Minister that a process can be created in that way.
And I think we have addressed the issue of capacity and we have addressed the issue of process. The Minister has been talking about the current situation, right now, with the capacity we have and the process we have. If we can add more resources and capacity, and we change the process to make it expedited to arrive at that prima facie decision, to stop the viralisation, I would put it to the Law Minister that that is perfectly conceivable.
And I also want to address the other point that the Minister made, that in some cases, the Judge will not agree. That is precisely the point. In some cases, the Judge will not agree.
If the Judge feels that he is being asked to make a prima facie decision, but he is looking at it on a balance of probabilities and he feels that the Executive is over-reaching or the Executive is abusing its power, so he may not agree in that case. And that is precisely the value of the check.
Mr K Shanmugam: I would ask Mr Perera not to put words in my mouth. When I said “not agree”, it may be because he says, “I want to hear what the other side has got to say”.
So, my point to Mr Perera is: therefore, we can take it, and it will be very simple, can I take it your position is that, definitionally, every single time it is necessary to make a decision, you believe that the Courts can be used to make a decision to break the virality within a matter of hours; every single time, when it is necessary to do so? Is that your Party’s position? Is that your position? If it is yes, yes. If it is no, no. That is all. It will be very good to clarify that.
Mr Leon Perera: If the Courts are sufficiently structured and resourced and the process is defined to enable that to happen, then the answer is yes.
Mr K Shanmugam: And you believe that that can be done by simply putting some submission to the Court? Is that it, whatever the civil servant submits to the Minister, can simply be submitted to the Court?
Mr Leon Perera: What I am saying to the hon Minister is that a simplified process can be created to absolutely minimise the lead time between Minister and Court to get a decision. There is a certain amount of lead time, in any case, for the internal conversation between civil servants and Ministers in such cases.
What we are talking about is the additional lead time between the Minister and the Court to get that decision to break the virality. So, I would put it to the Minister that a process can be defined that is very simplified to minimise that lead time.
Mr K Shanmugam: Yes. I have got the clarifications I needed, Sir. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Thank you. Mr Leon Perera, your speech.
https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs...ortid=bill-366
https://www.facebook.com/pritam.euno...47939928561630
-PRITAM SINGH-
TC Case
————
The public can read our short submissions on the matter of the Plaintiff’s application to amend their Statement of Claim after judgment has been rendered, on our blog - In Good Faith (
).
https://ingoodfaith.blog/2020/08/03/...ment-of-claim/
(In response to CNA article issued on 3 Aug 2020, in link below)
https://www.facebook.com/21135232888...7939928561630/
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ahtc-lawsuit-wp-leaders-object-to-plaintiff-new-claims-12986488?cid=FBcna&fbclid=IwAR2nAseKKi9CbP1eRrRhbD 9ujEn3J4xXnWOlTNO_dVL3mfuv2Wehv4R4WnI
https://www.facebook.com/workerspart...03398136343402
We are concerned that the government’s policies will raise the cost of living and increase financial pressures on the sandwiched class. Here’s a breakdown of the impact of a petrol price hike and the impending increase in GST.
What new WP MPs at Sengkang GRC will encounter:
Ng Chee Meng PPA(E) (Chinese: 黄志明; pinyin: Huáng Zhìmíng; born 8 August 1968) is a former Singaporean politician who was the Minister in Prime Minister’s Office from 1 May 2018 to 10 July 2020. His previous postings included Minister for Education in charge of Schools portfolio from 1 October 2015 to 31 October 2016 in acting capacity and from 1 November 2016 to 30 April 2018 in official capacity as well as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Pasir Ris–Punggol GRC from 11 September 2015 to 23 June 2020 and has also been the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) since 1 May 2018. He served as the 8th Chief of Defence Force of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) from 2013 to 2015, and held the rank of Lieutenant-General. He was also the Chief of the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) from 2009 to 2013. Upon retirement from military career, Ng announced his intention to enter politics, and is the highest ranking officer to join the ruling party.[1] In the 2015 Singapore general election, he was fielded to the Pasir Ris–Punggol GRC[2] and won its Punggol North seat, paving way to be a MP successfully. Ng also served as the Senior Minister of State at the Ministry for Transport from 1 October 2015 to his promotion to the Second Minister in 1 November 2016 and served till 30 April 2018.
http://geraldgiam.sg/2009/10/how-pap...omment-page-1/
How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain
Not many Singaporeans are aware of how much the taxpayer-funded grassroots have been used by the PAP for political gain.
Last week, Mr Eric Low and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, the PAP MP-aspirants who lost to Workers’ Party’s Low Thia Khiang and SDA’s Chiam See Tong respectively in the last election, grabbed the limelight for themselves by announcing HDB’s decision to upgrade lifts in Potong Pasir and Hougang.
I had written an article questioning why HDB had informed the losing candidates in opposition wards of the upgrading plans.
A Straits Times forum letter writer, Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman, said it best when he called for the mandate that the residents gave to the elected MPs to be respected. He asked: “Under what authority did both Mr (Eric) Low and Mr Sitoh (Yih Pin) act as advisers to the grassroots organisations, given that the People’s Association is a government statutory board and should work with the elected MPs of the constituencies?”
In response, HDB and People’s Association replied that “it is the Government’s practice to implement its national programmes for residents through advisers to grassroots organisations who are appointed by the Government to gather feedback from residents.”
They forgot to mention that these “advisers” are always PAP men, whether or not they won the election.
Not many Singaporeans are aware of how much the taxpayer-funded grassroots have been used by the PAP for political gain.
Here’s a quick run down:
The People’s Association (PA), a statutory board under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, was set up in 1960 to counter the influence of Chinese clan associations and unions on working class Singaporeans.
Like all other stat boards, it receives a yearly grant from the government to run its programmes and cover operational costs. In FY2008, PA received $280 million from taxpayers, and another $23 million in “operating income”. It spent a total of $320 million last year.
However unlike most stat boards, whose chairmen are usually the permanent secretary of the parent ministry or some other senior civil servant, PA’s chairman is none other than the Prime Minister. The deputy chairman and two other board members are PAP ministers, together with a PAP minister of state, two other PAP office holders and a PAP backbencher. Eight out of the 14 board members are PAP MPs. No other public sector board in Singapore has so many “Men in White” on it.
The PA oversees all the official “grassroots organisations”, namely the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCC), Community Club Management Committees (CCMC), Residents’ Committees (RC), Neighbourhood Committees (NC) and the Community Development Councils (CDC). PA also runs the National Youth Council (NYC) and the People’s Association Youth Movement (PAYM), which reach out to young people.
The de facto leader of all the CCCs, CCMCs, RCs and NCs in each constituency is known as the “adviser to the grassroots organisations (GROs)”. This adviser is appointed by PA, presumably with the nod of its chairman, the Prime Minister. In PAP constituencies, PA always appoints the elected MP as the adviser. But in opposition wards, PA appoints the PAP candidate who lost in the last election, not the opposition MP.
The same anomaly is repeated in the CDCs. CDCs have a whole panel of advisers, who are by default the GRO advisers. In South West CDC, where all the component constituencies are under the PAP, it is not surprising that all the advisers are PAP MPs. But in South East CDC, there is one grinning adviser who is not an MP — Sitoh Yih Pin, the man who lost to Mr Chiam See Tong (SDA) in Potong Pasir. North East CDC also has a non-MP — Eric Low — sitting as adviser. He lost to Mr Low Thia Khiang (WP) in the last two elections, garnering just 37% of the popular vote in 2006.
Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong are completely excluded from the CDCs.
CDCs, Community Clubs and other GROs often organise events which involve a large number of residents. Most of the time, the guest-of-honour at such events is — you guessed it — the PAP grassroots adviser.
All this effectively denies the opposition MPs access to the whole array of grassroots resources that PAP MPs have easy access to. The opposition MP has to build up his own grassroot network from scratch, while PAP MPs simply inherit the control of the RCs, CCCs and CCMCs.
Most HDB dwellers will be familiar with the notice boards next to the lifts. These are managed by the RCs, which ensure that residents always aware of who their PAP MPs are by featuring their names and photos prominently on the notice boards. But in Hougang and Potong Pasir, instead of the elected MP, residents will see the losing PAP candidate’s face on the notice board every day when they go home.
Around the neighbourhood, they will also see huge banners sponsored by PA or the CCC, featuring the losing PAP candidate wishing residents during festive occasions. The Opposition is given no such banner space in PAP wards.
To round it off, the GROs are often the recruiting ground for the PAP during elections. Many grassroots volunteers are also loyal PAP men and women, who shed their supposed neutrality to don PAP all-whites during the election campaign, serving as supporters, election agents and counting agents for the PAP candidates.
The best thing of all for the PAP is that all these grassroots resources come at zero cost to the party, since it is all paid for by taxpayers — yes including those who voted for the Opposition. Unlike in other countries where political parties — just like the Opposition here — have to fund their own grassroots activities, the PAP can save its funds to be used during the election campaign.
With all these factors stacked against the Opposition, it is indeed commendable that Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have managed to hold on to their seats for the past 20 years. The residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang have proven that sincerity and pure hard work on the ground will be rewarded.
http://geraldgiam.sg/2009/10/hdb-sho...ying-politics/
HDB should be neutral and stop playing politics
The HDB should stop letting itself become a political tool of the ruling PAP.
I am glad to learn that the opposition held wards of Hougang and Potong Pasir will finally be getting lift upgrading for their HDB blocks. This is a long overdue measure for the residents of the two constituencies, which have been strongholds of the opposition since 1991 and 1984 respectively.
Singaporeans will recall that on the eve of the polling day in 1997, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong warned voters that opposition estates risked becoming “slums” if they continued voting out the PAP. Thus started a pattern of Third World pork barrel politics of the ruling PAP, which culminated in the 2006 election when PAP candidates Eric Low and Sitoh Yih Pin boasted that caretaker National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan had promised the two wards a total of $180 million for upgrading if residents voted for the PAP.
Fortunately, voters were too sophisticated and principled to fall for the PAP’s dirty tactics of using taxpayer money to advance their partisan political ends. Hougang and Potong Pasir voters proved that they could not be so easily swayed by money and election goodies by re-electing Mr Low Thia Khiang (Workers’ Party) and Mr Chiam See Tong (Singapore Democratic Alliance), the former with a record high winning margin.
Three-and-a-half years after those embarrassing defeats, the PAP has realised that such underhanded tactics don’t work. So now they’ve taken a different tack by promising lift upgrading to these wards just as the next election looms.
TODAY newspaper reported that the PAP’s losing candidate Sitoh had received an email from HDB informing him of this news. He lost no time in breaking the good news to residents through a news release. Mr Eric Low plans to announce the news today at a grassroots event. In addition, Mr Sitoh said he will be sending out a circular to residents in the selected blocks soon, presumably with his own letterhead proclaiming himself as the “adviser to the Potong Pasir grassroots organisations”.
I see no reason why the HDB should break the news to the losing PAP candidates. Does the HDB inform losing opposition candidates of impending upgrading in the wards they contested in, for example in East Coast or Tampines? Definitely not!
So why the double standard? Is it to give a chance to the PAP’s losing candidates to be like Santa Claus bearing good gifts for residents as if it came from them?
The PAP’s Eric Low claimed that the upgrading “is a result of our efforts over the years”. What utter rubbish! It was the Workers’ Party’s Low Thia Khiang who had asked in Parliament after the 2006 elections for the promised $100 million to be released to Hougang for upgrading. But the National Development Minister stoutly refused, saying that the funds were conditional on voters choosing the PAP.
Knowing full well that the PAP’s intention was to put opposition wards at the end of the upgrading queue, Hougang Town Council had previously gone ahead to upgrade the lifts at the blocks on Hougang Avenue 3 and 7 at the cost of some $400,000 to $500,000 of the Town Council’s own funds. A mere seven years later, HDB simply demolished those upgraded blocks, and refused to reimburse Hougang Town Council the costs for the unexpired cyclical period.
In fact, HDB’s informing of the PAP’s losing candidates of the upcoming upgrading is just the tip of the iceberg of the agency’s history of partisan political manoeuvring.
After winning the 1991 elections and assuming the chairmanship of Hougang Town Council, the WP’s Low was immediately served by the HDB with a notice to quit the premises at Blk 810 Hougang Central, which was then occupied by the PAP’s Hougang Town Council. HDB also served him with a notice of termination of its services as the managing agent for Hougang Town Council. Despite this, the new Town Council managed to overcome the obstacles put in its way, built a new premise within 6 weeks, and took over the management of Hougang estate from the HDB on 1st January 1992.
Without an office to operate from and to manage the estate, Low then took on the task of building and completing, within six weeks, the Hougang Town Council’s office. It is now located at Block 701 Hougang Avenue 2. He also successfully put together a team of councillors and staff to manage and maintain Hougang estate. Together, they took over the management of Hougang estate from the HDB on 1st January 1992.
The HDB should stop letting itself become a political tool of the ruling PAP. This is not the way a taxpayer funded statutory board should operate. Residents of non-PAP wards pay their income taxes and GST, and do their national service just like the rest of us. They should not be discriminated against.
I call on HDB chairman Koh Cher Siang, HDB CEO Tay Kim Poh, Ministry of National Development permanent secretary Tan Tee How and all the good officers working under them to exercise their rightful independence and neutrality as civil servants and resist attempts by the PAP ministers (or any future government ministers) to pressure them into executing decisions that benefit the party and not the people.
https://sg.yahoo.com/news/comment-he...035901193.html
COMMENT: Heng Swee Keat - Chosen as Singapore PM, chose to quit
Nicholas Yong
Nicholas Yong·Assistant News Editor
Fri, 9 April 2021, 11:59 am
SINGAPORE — The would-be king is dead. Long live the king - whoever he or she might be.
Heng Swee Keat, once proclaimed by the late Lee Kuan Yew as his most capable aide ever, has now joined the ranks of political could-have-beens like Anwar Ibrahim and Hillary Clinton, leaving Singaporeans to wonder what sort of Prime Minister he might have made. All in, he lasted around two and a half years as the heir apparent to PM Lee Hsien Loong.
In a televised Istana press conference on Thursday (8 April) that was open only to Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and Mediacorp outlets, as well as the social news site Mothership, the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister abdicated as the chosen one almost nine months after the General Election, amid a plethora of well-rehearsed talking points.
But while PM Lee and Heng’s fourth-generation colleagues were all singing from the same hymn sheet, the end result was still puzzlingly, and maddeningly, discordant.
The 59-year-old first cited his age - he had belatedly realised that by the time the next General Election comes around, Heng will be in his mid-60s, and the runway for leadership succession will be too short. “We need someone who is younger with a longer runway, to not think in just one or two election terms, but think about the long term future of Singapore,” he said, exhibiting the body language of a man ill at ease in the glare of the media spotlight.
Then there was the startling admission that he had not seen himself as up to the job from day one. Asked when he had started thinking about stepping aside, Heng, who will retain his post as Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies, replied, “I started thinking about it when I was appointed. I do not want to take on any job which I cannot deliver…And therefore, I’ve been thinking about it as to whether am I the right person?”
To further complicate matters, despite singing his praises amid a show of unity, Heng’s 4G colleagues have yet to choose a new successor and said in a joint statement that his decision was an “unexpected turn of events”. Even more confusingly, Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security Teo Chee Hean will be acting PM whenever PM Lee is on leave, despite Heng remaining as DPM for now.
The average Singaporean could be forgiven for thinking: what is going on? For there is no other way to call it but for what it is: a leadership crisis.
Something does not add up
Yahoo News Singapore contributor PN Balji, a former editor of The New Paper and Today, covered two prime ministerial successions in his career: from the late Lee to Goh Chok Tong to the current incumbent. Now, he said, Singapore’s well-choreographed leadership succession has gone “topsy turvy”, even though Lee, 69, had already pledged to stay on till the end of the pandemic.
“The Singapore system is such that everything is well planned. Now Mr Heng steps aside and we don’t know who is going to take over. He is not going to be Finance Minister, but he’s still going to be DPM for a while. It’s all very intriguing and unsettling for Singapore,” Balji said.
Balji was also unconvinced by the 4G leaders citing the pandemic as a reason for the disruption in leadership succession. “COVID-19 has been here for a year. Is it worse than what it was a year ago? And PM Lee has already said he will not hand over until COVID-19 is over. So what is the pressure on Heng Swee Keat?”
All this does not bode well for the People’s Action Party, in the wake of last year’s election that saw the opposition making historic gains and the PAP’s vote share falling by almost nine percentage points. Since then, the ruling party has stumbled from one setback to another, whether it be the TraceTogether debacle or its apparent U-turn on the contentious tudung issue.
Come the next election, what would the PAP say if the Workers’ Party, which ran Heng to the wire in his East Coast ward, or any other opposition party were to contest the GRC and tell residents there: you were duped into voting for a man who was supposed to be PM, are you going to be duped yet again?
First among equals?
With the benefit of 20/20 vision - no pun intended - Heng’s unease in his role had been apparent for some time. One of the clearest signs that he might not be primus inter pares was his fumbling performance in a November 2019 parliamentary session.
Having proposed a motion that called on WP Members of Parliament Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim to recuse themselves from financial matters relating to the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC), he was meant to carry the ball. This reporter wrote at the time, “Instead, just minutes into the debate on the motion, Heng had to call for a time-out. He hummed and hawed, flipping through his folder like a student stumbling through his class presentation.”
Tellingly, clips of PM Lee looking exasperated and instructing Heng on what to say in the session had been circulating online. The latter’s reputation has always been that of a genial technocrat, and not a political street fighter.
Then came the 2020 election, when Heng made his infamous “East Coast Plan” gaffe and led his East Coast team to a less than convincing victory with just 53.41 per cent of the vote share. And despite delivering five pandemic Budgets, he was not at the front and centre of the government’s efforts to combat the coronavirus, raising questions about whether he inspired confidence among his own colleagues.
Who will be next?
National broadsheet The Straits Times, without citing any polls or individuals in the know, has already anointed four men as potential successors to Heng.
They are: Transport Minister Ong Ye Kung and Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing, both of whom have often been spoken of as potential PMs; Education Minister Lawrence Wong, who has impressed with his handling of the pandemic; and National Development Minister Desmond Lee, the youngest of the quartet at 44.
With a Cabinet reshuffle due in two weeks, matters will hopefully become clearer.
But the damage has been done with Singapore’s leadership succession in disarray. The PAP must move quickly and decisively if it is to reassure stakeholders on the domestic and international fronts.
It is uncertain if Heng will even be around to contest at the next GE.
Once upon time, the late Lee declared “I will now play goalkeeper” as he handed over to Goh Chok Tong. In Heng’s case, he has called for his own substitution long before the 90 minutes are up. Who will emerge to see Singapore through the game?
Stay in the know on-the-go: Join Yahoo Singapore’s Telegram channel at
Related stories:
Heng Swee Keat: My age is key reason in decision to step aside as leader of 4G team
Hope for ‘clear outcome’ of new 4G team leader before next GE: PM Lee Hsien Loong
GE2020: I’m determined to see through COVID-19 crisis, hand over Singapore in good order – PM Lee
Most Singaporeans would choose Tharman as the next Prime Minister: survey
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/heng-swee-...122950408.html
Heng Swee Keat: My age is key reason in decision to step aside as leader of 4G team
Vernon Lee
Vernon Lee·Senior Editor
Thu, 8 April 2021, 8:29 pm·4-min read
SINGAPORE — Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat said on Thursday (8 April) his age is a key reason why he was stepping aside as the leader of Singapore’s fourth-generation team.
Heng, 59, will remain as DPM and Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies, and step down as Finance Minister.
Speaking at a media conference to announce his decision, Heng said by the time he takes over as leader of Singapore, he will be in his mid-60s and the runway in leadership succession will be “too short”. The COVID-19 pandemic has also shaped his decision, he added.
“And we need someone who is younger with a longer runway, to not think in just one or two election terms, but think about the long term future of Singapore, and of Singaporeans and the structural challenges, which will creep up day by day,” Heng said.
Such a leader will be able to take Singapore through to the next phase of nation-building, with the support of the people, he added.
Heng, who is also Member of Parliament for East Coast GRC, said he is glad that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is staying on to see Singapore through the COVID-19 crisis.
When asked if his health was a factor behind his decision, Heng said his health is good now and he is very thankful to his medical team for taking great care of him.
In November 2018, following his appointment as the ruling People’s Action Party’s (PAP) first assistant secretary-general, Heng said that he had made “a very good recovery” from the stroke he suffered in 2016.
Speaking at a press conference then, Heng stressed, “I would not have taken up this appointment if I do not have the confidence that my health allows me to do it.”
https://twitter.com/YahooSG?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed% 7Ctwterm%5E1380188537983692800%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5 Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsg.news.yahoo.com%2Fhen g-swee-keat-age-key-reason-step-aside-leader-4g-team-122950408.html
In response to a question at the conference on whether the outcome of last year’s general election had an impact on Heng’s decision, the DPM said the results of the GE and in particular the East Coast GRC were not a factor.
At the GE, the PAP suffered its worst electoral performance since independence in terms of the number of seats lost to the opposition. The Workers’ Party won Sengkang GRC and retained Aljunied GRC and Hougang SMC for a total of 10 seats.
The PAP won 61.24 per cent of the votes cast and 83 seats out of 93 at the GE held amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Its vote share was a sharp drop from 69.9 per cent in GE2015.
In the closely watched contest for East Coast GRC, Heng led the PAP team to triumph over the WP team led by Nicole Seah, winning 53.41 per cent of the vote.
Heng revealed that when he was first appointed as leader of the 4G team, he was already thinking about the heavy responsibilities and tasks ahead, saying that the pandemic last year was a turning point for him.
“I started thinking about it when I was appointed. I do not want to take on any job which I cannot deliver. Those of you who have worked with me know I am a workaholic. And I put my heart and soul into what I do. And therefore, I’ve been thinking about it as to whether am I the right person?”
In a joint statement before the conference, the 4G leaders excluding Heng said they “respect and accept” the DPM’s decision.
“We appreciate what a difficult decision it must have been. But no one could have foreseen the disruption of COVID-19, the great uncertainty it has created, and its long-lasting impact. We know that he has made the decision with Singapore’s long-term interests at heart.”
Stay in the know on-the-go: Join Yahoo Singapore’s Telegram channel at
Related story:
DPM Heng Swee Keat steps aside as leader of 4G team, ‘setback for succession planning’
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/202...spore-leaders/
Leong Sze Hian’s crowdfunding success demonstrates how common people can weaken libel tactics by S’pore leaders
by The Online Citizen 07/04/2021in Court Cases, MediaReading Time: 3 mins read 88
Veteran blogger Leong Sze Hian’s crowdfunding success on Easter Sunday has highlighted how libel tactics by the Singapore leaders can be easily weakened by the common people through donations in a crowdfunding campaign.
Mr Leong, a financial advisor and blogger, initiated his crowdfunding effort on 25 Mar after the High Court ordered a sum of S$133,000 to be paid to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for the defamation suit brought against him by PM Lee.
The defamation suit concerns an article shared by Mr Leong on his personal Facebook Timeline titled “Breaking News: Singapore Lee Hsien Loong Becomes 1MDB’s Key Investigation Target – Najib Signed Several Unfair Agreements with Hsien Loong In Exchange For Money Laundering”.
The article, published by “Malaysian-based social news network” The Coverage, alleged that PM Lee had entered “several unfair agreements” with Najib Razak, who was the Malaysian Prime Minister at the time the deals purportedly took place, “including the agreement to build the Singapore-Malaysia High-Speed Rail”, according to court documents.
After just 11 days of crowdfunding, Mr Leong said that a “Miracle on Easter Sunday” had been achieved, noting that 2,065 people had contributed to the crowdfunding efforts.
A total of S$133,082 was raised as of Sunday, with the highest donation being S$5,000 and the smallest being S$2.91.
Speaking to Asia Sentinel on Wednesday (7 Apr), he branded PM Lee winning the libel suit as a “pyrrhic victory”.
“Thousands have written to me. It seems that the fear of the people may be turning into anger. I hope that this will be the last time that any politician will sue ordinary citizens for defamation (in Singapore), as they must realize now that it does not pay to continue to do so,” said Mr Leong.
While Mr Leong has managed to raise the damages for the defamation suit, he is still required to pay various costs comprising legal costs and court fees, which could amount to S$50,000 or more.
A Singaporean lawyer based in Hong Kong – who was not identified in the Asia Sentinel report – said that defamation lawsuits by the ruling party are intended to “punish critics” and “cripple them financially”.
“If one disregards the time and effort that the defendant has to spend on his defense, then donations by the public to support the public mean that neither of these objectives is achieved.
“Critics are likely to keep their silence for fear of the financial cost associated with losing these defamation claims. If the financial cost is covered by donations, however, this removes a significant disincentive for offering criticism, and could encourage more people to speak up,” said the lawyer.
PM Lee is also suing Terry Xu, the chief editor of The Online Citizen, pertaining to an article published on 15 August 2019 titled “PM Lee’s wife, Ho Ching weirdly shares article on cutting ties with family members”.
The article contained alleged defamatory statements made by PM Lee’s siblings Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling in relation to the 38 Oxley Road dispute.
Lawyer Lim Tean, who is defending both cases, told Asia Sentinel that he hopes the two libel cases of Mr Leong and Mr Xu will be the “last of the political libel trials our nation will witness”.
“Henceforth, the PAP should know that any attempt to curb free speech using antiquated libel laws will be met with the full resistance of the people, who are not prepared to be steamrolled any longer,” said Mr Lim.
He continued, “They may win the courts but these will be pyrrhic victories. The real winners will be the common man of Singapore who are willing to pay any price to support their champions such as Leong Sze Hian and Terry Xu, as this extraordinary crowdfunding campaign has demonstrated.”
Mr LHY, PM Lee’s younger brother, was among the 2,065 people who had donated to Mr Leong’s crowdfunding campaign.
“I was happy to be one of the many donors who came forward to help Leong to pay off the damages awarded by the court. It is very significant so many Singaporeans came forward to express their support,” said Mr LHY.
Correction: Edit about the phrase used by Mr Leong on pyrrhic victory
