[h=2]A frank, candid and insightful commentary on the PAP, its mediocre ministers, kiasu policies and 'atas' attitude, A must read.[/h]
by Say No! to Tony Tan as President of Singapore on Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 3:27pm
Date: 4 September 2011 9:38:50 PM AWST
Subject: Fwd: Ah Sook Fables - Ah Sook writes to Ah Loong
Dear Loong,
I opened up the ST and saw the photo of Dr TT flanked by the CJ and yourself. I was really concerned at the expression on your face. You looked shell shocked and it was apparent that there were many things troubling you as you stood there, distracted as Dr TT took the oath of office.
ST should really have chosen a better photo for their front page but they could have been focussed on their ex-Chairman who looks good in the photo.
I imagine you must be thinking about the events of the GE and the PE. Such an unexpected swing of voter sentiments following a short recession, a quick recovery and the fastest growth rate in the world. To your credit, you responded quickly during the GE, even said sorry a few times, retired some ministers and changed your cabinet and promised a more enlightened and transparent government.
You are right in calling for unity and for all Singaporeans to come together and to try to heal the various fault lines that have surfaced during these two elections.
But have you identified the true fault lines? There is probably an army of people now pouring through the voting patterns of various sub constituencies, analysing the socio-economic background of these people who voted for and against the PAP in both the GE and PE, and trying to identify the reasons for the results.
I was wondering whether it was the PAP that first divided Singaporeans into two classes - those that voted for the PAP and those against. The lesser Singaporeans pay the same taxes and did their NS (just like Dr TT’s sons but who were not shy to say what they did) but are deprived with less services, the delayed opening of MRT stations, bus services, lack of other services like kindergartens, supermarkets, and threatened with lower property values, dirtier precincts and statements that they will regret their choice. Of course the kiasu move by the HDB and PA to remove sites from the control of the opposition town councils, but not in PAP controlled wards, created another fault line. PA shamelessly says that they have the right to appoint grass root advisers which, to nobody’s surprise, are PAP loyalists, again effectively shutting out opposition MPs, another fault line. Now that another 144,000 people in Aljunied have voted oppositon, obviously these tactics cannot work anymore.
You ask Singaporeans to rally behind a President who was voted by 1/3rd of all voters but opposition MPs, who obtained more than 50% of the votes, are treated with disrespect and discrimination. So your call for unity does have a hypocritical ring about it.
Overall however you must be thinking about the big picture - what does all this mean for the PAP and the future of Singapore ?
I thought that the biggest problem confronting you is that there is no guarantee of the continuation of a strong PAP to lead Singapore into the next decade or more. Dr TCB is an example of how a split, possibly within the PAP ranks, can happen and what will be the likely consequences.
In fact, for example, is there anybody who can carry on as PM in the event you are forced to withdraw prematurely from the scene. Some think it could be Teo Chee Hean but he is the same vintage as yourself. I personally think that Tharman may be a good PM but he may not have the required Machiavellian traits, being a very nice guy. Anyway is Singapore ready for a non Chinese PM?
This is the danger and risk which faces Singapore today - whether the political process is robust enough and able to throw up competent people, dedicated to public service, uncorrupted and principled, wise, respected and able to lead. This is the price unfortunately we must pay for the type of politics played in the last three decades and the way we groom and find leaders.
You do have of course intelligent people in the cabinet but they basically come from the same mould – scholars, good academic results, top universities, successful bureaucratic or military service, and then finally inducted as political leaders.
I am afraid that many of these scholars succeed because they began in an artificial environment in the bureaurcracy and military. It is an environment where if you do no wrong, don’t make serious mistakes, recommend safe policies or execute programs reasonably well, you will get promoted. It is an environment that encourages the continuation of old and existing policies, many are on auto pilot .. after all, why change something that ain’t broken yet.
What can go wrong anyway – just the odd escape of a fugitive, some floods, crowded MRT trains, clogged expressways, crowded hospitals and schools, high inflation, stagnant wages for the lower classes, - nothing really serious, afterall nobody is starving or unemployed, the economic growth figures look good and politicans and civil servants get rewarded based on these figures. As for the rest of the population, they just got to grin and bear it. In the end the PAP still dominates in terms of overall seats and is unassailable.
What I am saying is that most US graduates of the most prestigous universities go on to lead rather unspectacular lives and mundane careeers after they pass out. Unlike real life, the civil service and military in Singapore is an artificial environment which allows such graduates to thrive and be successful. Many of these are subsequently parachuted into high political office and for them, it is just the continuation of a career, not much risks (until the last GE) of not being elected as a member in a GRC, with the prospects of much higher pay, remuneration and prestige of high political appointment.
Will they make good political leaders, are they just bureaucrats and adminstrators or faced with a real crisis, will they make the right decisions when they have been living in some sort of never never land in the civil service and military? We do not seem to have the required type of political sensitivity given our foray into Shin Corporation and rough patches with some of our neighbours.
This question is something which cannot be answered now. It will be left to future historians and hopefully the story will not be how Singapore failed to produce real leaders, got bypassed, became irrelevant and failed because bureaucrats by their very nature are not risk takers. In the past, we had people like Dr Goh Keng Swee, Howe Yoon Cheong, Hon Sui Sen and Sim Kee Boon, who were outstanding men of vision, dared to challenge and could think out of a box. Are there any more like them out there?
You, Ah Loong, has the burden of thinking this through. Please disregard what has been written in the hard truths by your father. He is a dinosaur, still fighting and refighting his battles with the demons and ghosts of the past, and he has his weird sociobiology and genetic beliefs. It was rather depressing reading his book, especially his statements about the lack of good capable people.
But the last elections did indeed throw up people of all ages who were passionate, intelligent and articulate, and most of all having the courage and conviction in their beliefs to take risks and fight overwhelming odds and a monolithic PAP. This is more than I can say about the PAP’s new MPs who just mostly cruised in without any risks and challenge. It does take much more guts to join the opposition as we can see from the tears shed when opposition leaders talk about making this choice, the fear of being bankrupted and other dire effects on career and family. I salute these brave souls and the people who have supported them. Even TCB complains about this fear factor among his old comrades.
Your nominees join a political team with an entitlement attitude. It is a “We are the best there is in Singapore . We were responsible for your well being and prosperity and therefore we deserve to be rewarded as well as the highest paid in Singapore ” attitude. Arguments that high pay was required to attract talented people from the private sector are basically self serving, given the lack of success in attracting such people in the past.
I cannot help but feel that this attitude first began with reticent ex-ministers and high flying civil servants who started to rake in millions as a result of their board appointments in various GLCs and TLCs which went public. Existing office holders obviously were naturally aggrieved that the monetary rewards seemed to be going to such less deserving people. So we saw a mad rush as to which CEO of which TLC or GLC would be making millions in salary and options. It did not escape the public eye that the highest paid CEOs right now in Singapore are those in the GLCs and that their remuneration also bumps up the Reference Group from which ministers pay are pegged.
There is anothere division between political office holders and corporate figures when it comes to the disclosure of remuneration matters. While the Government asks for disclosure of the remuneration of top corporate officials, it does not give the same transparency for its own leaders. Up till now, nobody knows for example what is the pension of our ministers and there are all kinds of figures being bandied around, up to millions. Why should ministers get pensions when CEOs of corporations do not is another mystery?
You should know I wrote a letter to TT asking him to give up his Presidential salary as a magnamious gesture and to drive home his commitment to public service ie he was not doing this for the money.
Afterall, he is already enjoying his MP retirement pension, his pension as ex DPM and now will be paid his new current Presidential pay of $4m plus. Why the President, just doing ceremonial duties with blocking powers in some areas, will make more than you, the CEO, is a mystery to me. He will get three bites of the cherry from the same employer viz the Singapore taxpayers. Come to think about it, he will definitely be making more than his predecessor who only had his presidential pay. TT will definitely be the highest paid official in Singapore by far if you include his total emoluments from the Singapore taxpayers.
All I can say is that this distinction will be part of his legacy as President, along with the NS controversy of his sons but which will hopefully include other non-monetary achievements and worthy contributions in the execution of his duties for the next 6 years.
Actually there are many things that I want to tell you but I don’t want to burden you right now, seeing the state you are in.
I will write when you are in a better frame of mind.
The next elections are a few years away and you do have time on your side. But please don’t start off by suing people for libel and damages now that the GE and PE are over. These old tactics don’t work any more.
You should take a good rest, go for a holiday and relax.
Yours sincerely,
Ah Sook
p/s By the way, people are calling you “pinky” in the internet. Please throw away all your pink shirts. Try some strong colours for a change.
by Say No! to Tony Tan as President of Singapore on Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 3:27pm
Date: 4 September 2011 9:38:50 PM AWST
Subject: Fwd: Ah Sook Fables - Ah Sook writes to Ah Loong
Dear Loong,
I opened up the ST and saw the photo of Dr TT flanked by the CJ and yourself. I was really concerned at the expression on your face. You looked shell shocked and it was apparent that there were many things troubling you as you stood there, distracted as Dr TT took the oath of office.
ST should really have chosen a better photo for their front page but they could have been focussed on their ex-Chairman who looks good in the photo.
I imagine you must be thinking about the events of the GE and the PE. Such an unexpected swing of voter sentiments following a short recession, a quick recovery and the fastest growth rate in the world. To your credit, you responded quickly during the GE, even said sorry a few times, retired some ministers and changed your cabinet and promised a more enlightened and transparent government.
You are right in calling for unity and for all Singaporeans to come together and to try to heal the various fault lines that have surfaced during these two elections.
But have you identified the true fault lines? There is probably an army of people now pouring through the voting patterns of various sub constituencies, analysing the socio-economic background of these people who voted for and against the PAP in both the GE and PE, and trying to identify the reasons for the results.
I was wondering whether it was the PAP that first divided Singaporeans into two classes - those that voted for the PAP and those against. The lesser Singaporeans pay the same taxes and did their NS (just like Dr TT’s sons but who were not shy to say what they did) but are deprived with less services, the delayed opening of MRT stations, bus services, lack of other services like kindergartens, supermarkets, and threatened with lower property values, dirtier precincts and statements that they will regret their choice. Of course the kiasu move by the HDB and PA to remove sites from the control of the opposition town councils, but not in PAP controlled wards, created another fault line. PA shamelessly says that they have the right to appoint grass root advisers which, to nobody’s surprise, are PAP loyalists, again effectively shutting out opposition MPs, another fault line. Now that another 144,000 people in Aljunied have voted oppositon, obviously these tactics cannot work anymore.
You ask Singaporeans to rally behind a President who was voted by 1/3rd of all voters but opposition MPs, who obtained more than 50% of the votes, are treated with disrespect and discrimination. So your call for unity does have a hypocritical ring about it.
Overall however you must be thinking about the big picture - what does all this mean for the PAP and the future of Singapore ?
I thought that the biggest problem confronting you is that there is no guarantee of the continuation of a strong PAP to lead Singapore into the next decade or more. Dr TCB is an example of how a split, possibly within the PAP ranks, can happen and what will be the likely consequences.
In fact, for example, is there anybody who can carry on as PM in the event you are forced to withdraw prematurely from the scene. Some think it could be Teo Chee Hean but he is the same vintage as yourself. I personally think that Tharman may be a good PM but he may not have the required Machiavellian traits, being a very nice guy. Anyway is Singapore ready for a non Chinese PM?
This is the danger and risk which faces Singapore today - whether the political process is robust enough and able to throw up competent people, dedicated to public service, uncorrupted and principled, wise, respected and able to lead. This is the price unfortunately we must pay for the type of politics played in the last three decades and the way we groom and find leaders.
You do have of course intelligent people in the cabinet but they basically come from the same mould – scholars, good academic results, top universities, successful bureaucratic or military service, and then finally inducted as political leaders.
I am afraid that many of these scholars succeed because they began in an artificial environment in the bureaurcracy and military. It is an environment where if you do no wrong, don’t make serious mistakes, recommend safe policies or execute programs reasonably well, you will get promoted. It is an environment that encourages the continuation of old and existing policies, many are on auto pilot .. after all, why change something that ain’t broken yet.
What can go wrong anyway – just the odd escape of a fugitive, some floods, crowded MRT trains, clogged expressways, crowded hospitals and schools, high inflation, stagnant wages for the lower classes, - nothing really serious, afterall nobody is starving or unemployed, the economic growth figures look good and politicans and civil servants get rewarded based on these figures. As for the rest of the population, they just got to grin and bear it. In the end the PAP still dominates in terms of overall seats and is unassailable.
What I am saying is that most US graduates of the most prestigous universities go on to lead rather unspectacular lives and mundane careeers after they pass out. Unlike real life, the civil service and military in Singapore is an artificial environment which allows such graduates to thrive and be successful. Many of these are subsequently parachuted into high political office and for them, it is just the continuation of a career, not much risks (until the last GE) of not being elected as a member in a GRC, with the prospects of much higher pay, remuneration and prestige of high political appointment.
Will they make good political leaders, are they just bureaucrats and adminstrators or faced with a real crisis, will they make the right decisions when they have been living in some sort of never never land in the civil service and military? We do not seem to have the required type of political sensitivity given our foray into Shin Corporation and rough patches with some of our neighbours.
This question is something which cannot be answered now. It will be left to future historians and hopefully the story will not be how Singapore failed to produce real leaders, got bypassed, became irrelevant and failed because bureaucrats by their very nature are not risk takers. In the past, we had people like Dr Goh Keng Swee, Howe Yoon Cheong, Hon Sui Sen and Sim Kee Boon, who were outstanding men of vision, dared to challenge and could think out of a box. Are there any more like them out there?
You, Ah Loong, has the burden of thinking this through. Please disregard what has been written in the hard truths by your father. He is a dinosaur, still fighting and refighting his battles with the demons and ghosts of the past, and he has his weird sociobiology and genetic beliefs. It was rather depressing reading his book, especially his statements about the lack of good capable people.
But the last elections did indeed throw up people of all ages who were passionate, intelligent and articulate, and most of all having the courage and conviction in their beliefs to take risks and fight overwhelming odds and a monolithic PAP. This is more than I can say about the PAP’s new MPs who just mostly cruised in without any risks and challenge. It does take much more guts to join the opposition as we can see from the tears shed when opposition leaders talk about making this choice, the fear of being bankrupted and other dire effects on career and family. I salute these brave souls and the people who have supported them. Even TCB complains about this fear factor among his old comrades.
Your nominees join a political team with an entitlement attitude. It is a “We are the best there is in Singapore . We were responsible for your well being and prosperity and therefore we deserve to be rewarded as well as the highest paid in Singapore ” attitude. Arguments that high pay was required to attract talented people from the private sector are basically self serving, given the lack of success in attracting such people in the past.
I cannot help but feel that this attitude first began with reticent ex-ministers and high flying civil servants who started to rake in millions as a result of their board appointments in various GLCs and TLCs which went public. Existing office holders obviously were naturally aggrieved that the monetary rewards seemed to be going to such less deserving people. So we saw a mad rush as to which CEO of which TLC or GLC would be making millions in salary and options. It did not escape the public eye that the highest paid CEOs right now in Singapore are those in the GLCs and that their remuneration also bumps up the Reference Group from which ministers pay are pegged.
There is anothere division between political office holders and corporate figures when it comes to the disclosure of remuneration matters. While the Government asks for disclosure of the remuneration of top corporate officials, it does not give the same transparency for its own leaders. Up till now, nobody knows for example what is the pension of our ministers and there are all kinds of figures being bandied around, up to millions. Why should ministers get pensions when CEOs of corporations do not is another mystery?
You should know I wrote a letter to TT asking him to give up his Presidential salary as a magnamious gesture and to drive home his commitment to public service ie he was not doing this for the money.
Afterall, he is already enjoying his MP retirement pension, his pension as ex DPM and now will be paid his new current Presidential pay of $4m plus. Why the President, just doing ceremonial duties with blocking powers in some areas, will make more than you, the CEO, is a mystery to me. He will get three bites of the cherry from the same employer viz the Singapore taxpayers. Come to think about it, he will definitely be making more than his predecessor who only had his presidential pay. TT will definitely be the highest paid official in Singapore by far if you include his total emoluments from the Singapore taxpayers.
All I can say is that this distinction will be part of his legacy as President, along with the NS controversy of his sons but which will hopefully include other non-monetary achievements and worthy contributions in the execution of his duties for the next 6 years.
Actually there are many things that I want to tell you but I don’t want to burden you right now, seeing the state you are in.
I will write when you are in a better frame of mind.
The next elections are a few years away and you do have time on your side. But please don’t start off by suing people for libel and damages now that the GE and PE are over. These old tactics don’t work any more.
You should take a good rest, go for a holiday and relax.
Yours sincerely,
Ah Sook
p/s By the way, people are calling you “pinky” in the internet. Please throw away all your pink shirts. Try some strong colours for a change.
