Thank You, Sir! - On the Politics of Gratitude by Desirée Lim

I am humbled by such astute, pointed and insightful clarity from a young Singaporean on our political maturity as a society and nation.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/desir%C3%A9e-lim/thank-you-sir-on-the-politics-of-gratitude/10150178935113774)#!/notes/desir%C3%A9e-lim/thank-you-sir-on-the-politics-of-gratitude/10150178935113774)#!/twostoreys

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank You, Sir! - On the Politics of Gratitude

by Desirée Lim on Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 9:18am

Lately, I've been noticing a worrying trend in the sentiments of PAP supporters. Let's look at three examples, in order of verbosity:

On Twitter:

jetidalwave Celine Ong 
"Pap has been managing our country so well for so long, people aren't even grateful~ 14 hours ago"

A widely-read blog (http://xiaxue.blogspot.com/):
"But what I cannot stand is how the elections have shown how horribly ungrateful and thankless Singaporeans are.
No matter what a shitty job the PAP is doing now, it remains that a lot of their members have dedicated a big part of their lives to building everything we have today."

And, to top off the social media, a Facebook note (http://www.facebook.com/notes/daryl-gan/thoughts-on-ge2011/10150604377405201):
i am [of] the opinion that we lack a sense of gratitude for what the PAP has done. Sure the PAP has made a number of mistakes, but all in all i think they've done a good job and even if we do not agree on some of their policies, i think we should show some respect and gratitude to the PAP's leaders. To illustrate my point, i suggest we all put ourselves in Mr. Lee Hsien Loong's shoes for just a minute. A man of his qualifications and intellect can easily find another job which is less demanding and definitely higher paying. Yet he has chosen to put in the effort to sincerely and humbly serve an electorate that is often ungrateful and has frequently accused him of being the benefactor of despotism. If you were Lee Hsien Loong, wouldnt you want to just quit and maybe go work for Google or KeppelCorp? Why bother with serving people who do not appreciate what you've done? Why torture yourself that way? 

Shall we play a simple game of spot the difference? The answer is: there is none. Or, more accurately, there are two overlapping claims that effectively reinforce each other.

a) We should be grateful to the PAP for what they have done all this while.
b) We should be grateful to PAP members for sacrificing more profitable alternatives and altruistically offering us their governance.

Regardless of which party or politician they invoke, these claims do not sit well with me. Let's look at the first, which I believe to be the more common sentiment. On a logical level, I do not understand the notion of being 'grateful' to an institution that exists for - revelation! - the main purpose of serving a country's interests. I personally think that gratitude is, in an impersonal sense, necessarily tied to supererogation: giving more than is required. Consider donor recognition plaques. Perhaps, on some level, the rich are obliged to give back to society, but let's keep it simple by assuming that a philanthropist, having no relation to my charity, is not obliged to fund it. I would be tremendously grateful if a philanthropist were, indeed, to offer me a handsome donation of his own volition; enough to carve out his name on a wooden surface.

But what about agencies that serve a particular purpose? It is odd and awkward to say, I suspect, that I am grateful to the Royal Mail for delivering my parcel. Neither am I grateful to the sweet-voiced lady who helped me sort out my temperamental Internet connection. I'm relieved that my hairdresser Caz didn't screw up my haircut, but it doesn't quite translate into gratefulness. Above all, I might be glad for the existence of these services, especially when they prove themselves efficient (for my life is better off that they exist); yet I continue to believe that gratitude is an entirely separate matter.

Let's dig a little deeper. How, exactly, does gratitude function in our personal relationships? I have no contention with the fact I am deeply grateful to my mother, but should I be? On one hand, it is popularly thought that parents are morally obliged to give their children the best lives they possibly can. My mother might be, like the Royal Mail, viewed as merely carrying out her necessary function. On the other, perhaps she has gone beyond her call of duty by pampering me with a luxurious lifestyle. My answer to this disagreement is, simply, that it is irrelevant.

There are two things that stop me from seeing mother, as akin to postal service. The first is that, unlike the latter, which exists purely for its function, mothers are not the same. They are people with life-plans, ambitions, yearnings separate from their children. Caring for us inevitably involves a conflict with some of their own interests. Because it might be retorted that mothers are obliged to give up their interests, I think my second point is more salient.  Motherhood is not a job: it is a designation of kinship, of a relationship between two individuals. And I believe that we, as humans, frequently show our love for others by being grateful for the role they play in our lives.

You might ask what these observations have to do with the PAP. I am told to be grateful because they have "managed our country well for this long". Returning to my previous examples: am I grateful to the Postal Service for successfully delivering my parcels? No, because any less would mean they were doing a crappy job. Likewise, the PAP has most emphatically not gone beyond its call of duty. I think another problem for Singaporeans is that we confuse designations of roles and functions with designations of kinship. Why is this happening? If I am allowed to speculate, I draw your attention to another part of a): "what they have done all this while". Ever since Singapore's independence, which tends to demarcate the start of national memory, the PAP has been the only ruling party we have known. Key events in Singapore's development are attributed to the PAP, reminding us of how, if not for them, our lives would be unbearable. (I would be a maid in another country.) In our national narrative, the party comes to adopt distinctly human traits: determination, resolve, kindness. In short, it's just like family.

Perhaps we are now in a better position to contemplate the second claim. It is a natural corollary of the first; if the PAP has supererogatory qualities, so do the people within it. Evidently, Lee Hsien Loong went beyond his obligations as a human being to become our Prime Minister. For that reason, we ought to vote him in again.

Am I the only person who thinks this is ludicrous?

I don't deny that entering politics has an air of nobility to it, the same way being a teacher, or a health worker, is an honourable job. I had a brilliant teacher who actively chose teaching over a high-paying job as a lawyer, because he believed it to be more meaningful. I admire Chee Soon Juan for giving up what could've been a cushy life in an ivory tower, to agitate for democratic rights. There is an element of personal sacrifice. Yet, what does this have to do with guaranteeing them their jobs? Should my teacher, then, never be sacked, even though he fails to impart the syllabus? I don't mean to say that Lee Hsien Loong is a terrible Prime Minister who should be immediately deposed. What I'm trying to underline, instead, is that we employ individuals based on their ability, not their good intentions.

I am sure many will protest that we should employ politicians of sound moral character; who display their sincere desire to serve the nation. I would love to believe this of my pet politicians. If there were some way I could ascertain that they were, without a doubt, benevolent individuals, I'd be deeply relieved. Still, my point is that public personas are never perfectly transparent, and while seemingly exemplary character adds tremendously to their appeal, we are best off focusing on the material benefit they can deliver. I am also surprised at how much b)'s line of thought conflicts with the common justification behind our ministers' notoriously high salaries. I quote our Prime Minister: "It is critical for us to keep these salaries competitive, so as to be able to bring in a continuing flow of able and successful people." His reasoning is that we need ministers to be paid highly, so as to attract talented people into the political field; god forbid that they all become doctors, lawyers, academics. Is the underlying suggestion not, then, that PAP members join politics largely because of its material benefits? Whatever your conclusion, these ideas are patently incompatible.

In closing: I am not, in the least, a fan of our politics of gratitude. I can understand its origins, and why our citizens think very differently from people in other countries. To my knowledge, it is a sentiment rarely, if ever, expressed in Britain. People understand that certain parties are responsible for certain enactments. Labour had a strong part to play in the attempt to reverse Thatcherite policies, but this does not stop the British from criticising Labour for its various failings. People do not tell each other to shut up because Labour once helped develop the NHS. I think our tendency towards simplistic gratitude is a symptom of how immature and stunted our democracy is, and we best abandon this nostalgic, irrational, backward-looking mindset if we wish to progress any further.

PS: This note is public - I shamelessly request you to pass it on if you think my conclusions are important.

Edit: I feel I should clarify this point. I enthusiastically encourage people to add a personal touch to their interactions with others, no matter the capacity we encounter them in - it's a recognition of our shared humanity. I like showing service staff my appreciation, even if it is their job. But, taken so far that it's a reason not to appraise them objectively and identify their flaws, this is no good.

Time For Singaporeans To Understand What Democracy Means

Even before all the Election results were out, there were already online posts/petitions and smses seeking redress for Mr Chiam See Tong, the removal of Miss Tin Pei Ling as a newly appointed MP and the reinstatement of Minister George Yeo.

The activities gathered strong momentum and by today, the internet and smses were abuzzed with messages asking for by-elections through signed petition for Mr Chiam See Tong and Facebook posts asking "junior" members of parliament to make way for Minister George Yeo's reinstatement.

A shiver ran down my spine when I personally recieved an smsasking for signatories to the petition for a by-election for Mr Chiam. In their emotional zeal of support for Mr Chiam, these fellow Singaporeans are inevidently undermining the democratic system of our nation; and the same can be said for those calling for the removal of Miss Tin Pei Ling and the reinstatement of Minister George Yeo.

Anyone who reads my blog and facebook posts will know that I hold Minister Yeo and Mr Chiam in the highest respect and regard. I share the same grouses that the political system is flawed to allow untried candidates to get into Parliament without standing for themselves or that lessser seasoned politicians were returned to office because of it is a team-to-team choice for voters in GRCs. However, the voice of Singaporeans has spoken. We have made our choice and as much as there are those of us who do not like the choices made by our fellow Singaporeans, we MUST abide by our people's choices. To now petition for a reversal of the results will undermine our democratic process and the integrity of our nation. It is our votes that resulted in the outcomes. As a democracy, we must learn to accept the majority will of our people.

If anything, we should learn that our vote is sacred and precious, that our one vote does make a difference. It is our responsibility to exercise that decision each time with care.

 

These efforts by well meaning fellow Singaporeans will not only be futile, it is diversive to our nation. It is time for every Singpoarean to come together as a nation, to start the healing and work towards a society that we can be proud of; a society where there is compassion and where citizens can truly hold our government accountable for their actions.

It is time to once again see each other for who we are - Fellow Citizens of Singapore.

And I Thought It Would Be Easy At The Counting Centre !

An article from Yawning Bread, Au WaiPang, who acted as a counting agent for one of the political parties during Polling Day.

Here I was, thinking it would be obvious how people will vote.....Little did I know better !

Enjoy the revelation!

https://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/counting-agent-me/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counting agent me

Published 8 May 2011

“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, ranging from National Servicemen to civil servants to retirees, 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.

Private Sector Consequences: Steve Jobs On The Difference Between A VP And A Janitor

Steve Job's view as a private sector CEO.

PM Lee should take a page from this since we peg our Ministers to private sector top compensation levels; especially the last paragraph which reads

"In other words, you have no excuse for failure. You are now responsible for any mistakes that happen, and it doesn't matter what you say."

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the-difference-between-a-vice-president-and-a-janitor-2011-5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Jobs On The Difference Between A Vice President And A Janitor

Jay Yarow | May 7, 2011, 10:53 AM

Steve Jobs gives employees a little speech when they're promoted to Vice President at Apple, according to Adam Lashinsky in a new article in Fortune that's not online yet.*

Lashinsky calls it the "Difference Between the Janitor and the Vice President."

Jobs tells the VP that if the garbage in his office is not being emptied regularly for some reason, he would ask the janitor what the problem is. The janitor could reasonably respond by saying, "Well, the lock on the door was changed, and I couldn't get a key."

An irritation for Jobs, for an understandable excuse for why the janitor couldn't do his job. As a janitor, he's allowed to have excuses.

"When you're the janitor, reasons matter," Jobs tells newly minted VPs, according to Lashinsky.

"Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering," says Jobs, adding, that Rubicon is "crossed when you become a VP."

In other words, you have no excuse for failure. You are now responsible for any mistakes that happen, and it doesn't matter what you say.

An Open Letter to Our Prime Minister Lee - From Samantha Lee

A wonderfully penned letter with good suggestions from Miss Samantha Lee, a 23-year old Singaporean.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/samantha-lee/an-open-letter-to-pm-lee/196514823725017

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

An open letter to PM Lee
by Samantha Lee on Sunday, May 8, 2011 at 1:01pm

Dear Mr Lee Hsien Long,

Congratulations on winning the majority of the seats in Parliament. You promised to listen to us and I sincerely hope you would. In all due honesty sir, I think a great deal of reflection is needed on the PAP's part. You should have seen the power of social media by now. Whilst I do not condone the endless stream of hateful messages liberally discharged onto Miss Tin Pei Ling and Mr Vivian Balakrishnan's Facebook pages, I think more attention should be paid to what is being said on Singapore politics by Singaporeans. Given the general atmosphere of dislike by the younger tech-savvy generation and the PAP's declining popularity figures, it could be inferred that the PAP would not be here today if not for the loyalty of the older generation.

My intention here is not to be accusatory nor malicious. On the contrary, I only wish to say my part on Singapore's behalf by highlighting key issues that I feel concerned about and my suggestions for dealing with them. Unfortunately, I'm not great stateswoman, so my suggestions are very much surfacial and crude. I would humbly request for your patience as you read through them. As such, on the behalf of Singaporeans, I would like to request the following:

1. Public referendum to establish if Singaporeans would like GRC system to be abolished in favor of and return to single seat wards, and should any MP resign or is deemed unfit to remain, we can then have proper by-elections.

Previously my first point was towards the creation of a "public referendum to establish if Singaporeans would prefer Mr George Yeo in Parliament over Miss Tin Pei Ling." My argument was that  "As you said many times before, Singapore needs an A-team of officials and I feel that we should deem their qualities across the board (i.e. a good worker is good to both his/her boss, colleagues and subordinates). I'm sure many other Singaporeans would agree with me that despite her qualifications, Miss Tin is still not yet capable of being an competent MP. Her lack of experience could mean that her contributions could probably never match up the Mr Yeo's decades of experience." I stand corrected on this issue. A friend has pointed out to me that this move would completely unconstitutional and dangerous towards our political stability and our focus should be on eliminating the GRC system.

"While I dislike the GRC system, it is what we voted under. If it were so simple a matter as to replace an MP, then the whole elections would be invalidated. Both Aljunied and Marine Parade voted for a team, and what happened is that a good Minister was left out and a potentially mediocre MP got in, but that is how it works currently. "

2. Public accountability. 
 For us to trust the government, I feel that there is a need to establish accountability. For example, Mr Balakrishnan spent over $387 million for the YOG and no one really knows how the money was spent. On an entirely depressing note, we won't even know if he or his team pocketed the money.  In fact, we wouldn't even know if he or his team took the bulk of the money and shared it with all the ministers in Parliament. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not accusing the government of being corrupt or doubting Mr VB's integrity. My main point is, we don't know what's going on- we never did. I would even blame the SLA corruption scandal on insufficient checks of government expenditure. Till date, the PAP has never failed to react harshly towards corrupt members. But what if these culture fails? As such, I would propose setting up a team of public auditors randomly drawn from the public (the same way the USA forms its jury).

3. Public Housing.
 As a young 23 year old Singaporean, I find it entirely depressing that I would have to live with my parents till the day I hit 35. There's is nothing outstanding about me enough to feel assured that I can afford a private home before 35 either. I also feel that it is entirely unfair to give priority to married couples. Marriage is something that doesn't happen overnight and it is always better to do it well once with great conviction rather than through a series of failed "experiments". Given Mr Mah's general crassness and obtuse nature, I actually expect a rejoinder that I can perfectly well move out and rent a place on my own. But think about it this way, if I rent a place, that place is still not mine. And given the obscenely high cost of HDB here, I should be saving up for my own home instead of "giving" money to a landlord. I hope you will lover the age bar for owning private homes as well as make small units available to single Singaporeans.

4. Birth rate.
I honestly think the Baby Bonus scheme would work if a HEAVILY subsidized 4 room flat comes with the package for each couple's first child. I'm sure many young Singaporeans would agree with me- by the time they can afford a flat and their flats are built, they're too tired and broke to have children. And once they recover from this financial burden, their factories have ceased production.

5. Foreign Talent. 
I would like to urge the government to re-look at their policies of the wholesale importing of foreigners to increase our GDP. For one, our infrastructure cannot cope with such a huge influx of people. Attempts to suddenly "upgrade" the infrastructure so rapidly might be dangerous, especially if quality is being compromised for the sake of quantity. Another issue with FT is a neo-racism where it is no longer the artificial Chinese, Malay or Indian divides but rather the Singaporean vs PRC divide. It might not be clear to you but in our daily lives, we encounter PRCs bragging about how stupid we are to invite them so openly into our country with little concern about their loyalty or personalities.

We need to scrutinize such individuals more before granting them PR status- where is home? Is it still in mainland China or is it Singapore? Besides, I find it in exceedingly bad taste that so many PRCs are being brought in till the point that our multicultural diversity is being bred out. It has a reached the point that wherever I go in Singapore, all I have to do is throw a rock randomly and chances are, I'll hit a PRC instead of a Singaporean. We once used the slogan "Malaysian Malaysia" for our neighbours and yet we can't even achieve a "Singaporean Singapore". Very depressing.

6. Pegging Ministerial pay to GDP. 
Unfortunately many Singaporeans would agree with me that whilst your team deserves a high pay, what you earn now is nothing short of ridiculous. What makes a good politician goes beyond his ability to spin money for his country, it is his heart- to improve the lives of those under his charge (from their perspective, not his; bottom-up approach). I disagree that high ministerial pay deters corruption because New Zealand, Sweden and Denmark did so much better than us and their ministers earn a lot lesser than you do. I also disagree that high pay is needed to attract talent. As mentioned, politics is about having a heart to serve the people, it should never be about money because that would just result in legalized corruption.

Such a high pay sir, would only result in excessive pressure on you and your ministers. To command such a high pay would mean lesser tolerance of failure  and even lesser tolerance of apparent snobbishness. I'm sure you would agree with me sir, that the success of a politician does not just lie in his ability to push forward necessary but unpopular policies, it lies in his ability to convince the people why it must be so while showing his ability to empathize with their concerns and amend policies accordingly without waiting till the pre-election period. This is because, whenthat happens, the public perception would be "too little too late".

7. Singapore Identity
With the huge influx of Foreigners in Singapore, many feel that our identity as Singaporeans has been severely corrupted. In all due honesty, I think our nation-building process was too artificial and it went against all the laws of normal social-identity development. We are a young nation where everything is artificially imposed on us. NDP has lost its appeal to me as well as many others from my generation, so much so that I don't even watch it anymore! How could I? Singapore is a home to me only as long as my family is here. I feel alienated in my own country. Foreigners laugh at me for having such an "open" government. The landscape is changing so rapidly and radically that I have no emotional triggers to special memories that once meant so much to me. Dialects are rapidly dying out and those from mixed communities like Perankans/Eurasians are just forced into being Chinese. Why can't we celebrate diverity as it is? Why forcefully categorize everything?

8. The Gay Agenda.
I'm not gay but I would wish to represent the gay community on this issue. I understand that the government's stand on 377a is to leave the law there but not actively pursue it. Sir, the world has moved on and if we don't lose our conservative nature, we will be left behind. Please abolish 377a, it is within your capacity to do so I believe. Religious groups might be against this but we are secular state and we should cherish this. We might be conservative but there is little need to make homosexuality criminal. I would like to add on that you're eitehr gay or you're not. Endorsing homosexuality would not result result in an increase of homosexuality per se because increasing numbers would mean more people are coming out in the open.

I would also like to request for the approval of gay marriages and allowing gay couples to adopt. This is because I believe that it is infinitely better for children from orphanages or other institutions to be cared for by a couple (regardless of sexual orientation). It is always better to grow up in an environment of nurturance where there are role models to guide you in your developmental process. Love, loyalty (to family), flexibility and tolerance are four important life lessons that are generally not imparted in institutions. In fact, some studies have shown that homosexual couples are very much capable in raising children to be competent individuals in society. I hope you will give this issue some thought.

9. Upgrading our voting methods.
I have realised that over the years, there are a large number of rejected votes. Yesterday was my first time voting and I was honestly suprised about how inefficient the system was. Manual tabulation and counting is a highly tedious process and time consuming process with a large room for error. I have heard some people complain that they accidentally put a tick instead of a cross. I would like to propose that we upgrade our voting system to use the OAS sheet. Given the fact that almost everyone in Singapore has bought 4D/Toto at least once in their lifetime, it could possible reduce the number of rejected votes. And to ensure that the circle is correctly shaded, I would suggest that thick felt markers would be provided. One dot on the paper is all that is needed and counting would be so much faster with less room for error.

I sincerely hope that you will get to read my letter.

Yours Sincerely,
Samantha Lee

With The Awakening Comes The Search For Answers

Life does throw curve balls at times.

As recent as 3 weeks ago, I was not even that interested in the elections; expecting that it will pretty much be the same like past elections. Sure, I had the usual grouses like most Singaporeans of the rising inflation and the ever escalating property prices despite the cooling measures taken by the government; but I like to grumble about it and left it at that. It was only at the urging of my wife to write to the Straits Times forum about my strongly held views that I started blogging (I wrote in to the Straits Times as well but my letters were never published even though they called to tell me that they were considering publishing one of them).

Little did I know how truly powerful the pen is (The pen is indeed mightier than the sword). As I started penning down my thoughts, something stirred in me - a passion that laid dormant for so long that I forgotten it was there. And the more I write, the stronger the passion grew. Obviously through the election days, the electrically charged atmosphere added fuel to it. While the election results were what I expected, I was surprised by how much it weighed down my heart the whole of Sunday. I mean, it wasn't as if the election results affected my life personally but yet, I experienced the burden I normally would associate with personal events.

As I face a new work week and the excitement of the elections over. Things are seemingly more "normal" as the demands of my life begins to take hold again. Yet, the awaken passion of doing something meaning other than pursuing financial progress is firmly felt. It has caught me off-caught and completely unprepared. Perhaps, it is just the lingering effects of an overdose of emotions and adrenalin that needs to be worked out of my system; but do I want this passion to dissipate back into a deep slumber? I don't know and I have decided not to over-think this. Instead, I will try to tap on this energy/passion while it is still with me and try to seek some peace.

I am searching for options on what I can do to contribute and participate to help develop my nation to one that not only values economic progress; but also values compassion and humanity. Interestingly, I met with a Non-Profit Organization, CNPL (Centre of Non-Profit Learning) whom I am exploring to volunteer my services. They highlighted a current movement that struck a chord with me - Kampung Temasek.

http://www.kampungtemasek.org/

I will be learning more about this to see if it is a good place for me to start.

My Hope For the New Parliament - By Verdy Wildcard

A brilliant and clear disposition of what I am feeling on Post Election Day.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150240911681474

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Hope for the New Parliament.

by Verdy Wildcard on Sunday, May 8, 2011 at 2:44pm

We have woken up to the first day after the elections. We are one nation again. The mandate given was considered strong although it was a 20% lead. The next 5 years have been laid out.


It was an exciting moment to see the results. I wouldn't talk about my emotions regarding the results. I trust the elected members of parliament & ministers to be, to do their job as brilliantly as their predecessors, if not better.


I'll just have to say that the GRC system is a mechanism which is detrimental to our country. It has facilitated a trade of George Yeo for Tin Pei Ling. Did you ever see petitions being written as elections results were announced?

Petition to disqualify PAP Marine Parade team - http://on.fb.me/m4Acug 
Petition to remove Tin Pei Ling as MP - http://on.fb.me/mz29cz
Complaint lodged against Tin Pei Ling - http://bit.ly/kBNYMS

As the Elections Department "look into the matter", I wonder what will be the outcome, if any. I will look forward to the Elections Department addressing this issue in the papers.


I have reflected upon the entire elections & it seems pretty clear for the following:


Notable talent for politics.
I will mention 2 of them. Vincent Wijeysingha & Nicole Seah. The Opposition has been losing votes due to poor public speaking skills for decades. For once, we see a possibility of a sound mind & good speaking skills from that camp.


I will look forward to see these 2 politicians progress at the next elections.


GRC system will not ensure fair representation in Parliament.
The PAP won 60% of the votes in this elections, the lowest since independence with a 6% drop from GE2006. 132,000 citizens have switched camps. For their poorest result in history, they have retained 93% of their seats in Parliament. On a national level, there isn't a fair representation of the electorate.


The idea behind the GRC is that people from different constituencies are represented, assuming that the people living within a physical location are of the same socio-demographics, wealth & aspirations. I wonder how much of that is true.


GRC system forces the electorate into unnecessary dilemmas of National Interests.
Pitting 5v5 in an 8 day match has been exciting. However, it only proved that our national interests are easily jeopardised by a tiny fraction of the citizenry.


Our loss of a good Foreign Minister culminated with the decisions of 143,000 voters in Aljunied GRC, or the sentiments of 6.5% of the electorate. The retention of Minister for National Development was the result of 137,000 votes in Tampines GRC, or 6% of the electorate.


It doesn't help that it just takes 4.7% & 7.2% of votes to turn the tides respectively, approximately 0.3% of the electorate.


GRC system is more likely to allow weak candidates to succeed & strong candidates to fail.
As we look deeper into the Parliamentary system & running a country, it's clear that citizens support politicians who can address their concerns. On a basic level, there needs to be faith placed onto the politicians.


Does the GRC system facilitate that? Marine Parade voters are forced in an unnecessary dilemma of choosing to keep SM Goh & voting out TPL. How have CCS & TCJ, the 2 army generals, been exhibiting their capabilities? As the Armed Forces is an organization with no profit & loss, are the 2 new MPs able to relate to issues on the ground such as hawkers' grouses with rent? I sincerely hope for the MPs will draw near to such matters.


The GRC system has created a result which very much of the electorate would want to undo. That is the loss of Foreign Minister George Yeo & election of Tin Pei Ling. The only validation for Tin Pei Ling is that I think women should be represented more in Parliament.

"Talent management is poor."

We could pit the current Cabinet against a Shadow Cabinet, where the sentiments of the electorate could be clearly expressed. The stakes would be tremendously high in that situation.


If we had an SMC system of 87 wards, we will have very different results with the same group of candidates & electorate today. It would be a result which ensures the retention of talent & interest of the country.

"That would have been the best system, in the interest of the nation."

We could have Nicole Seah & Tin Pei Ling switch places, under the tutelage of SM Goh. That would have been the best situation.


The way forward.
We see a 300% increase in the number of Opposition MPs. What does that bode for Singapore, we are unable to tell. It feels like nothing is going to change with 93% of seats won by the PAP.

PAP to adapt to new electorate - http://bit.ly/mEephs

The Prime Minister has pledged to look into ways to "transform the PAP", to find ways to work with the new electorate. I trust that the works will follow through.
I hope to see an effective system of grooming talents & not grooming people with qualifications. A politician has to fulfil a base level requirement of connecting with the people before we look at their capabilities in economics & what not.
I hope the new candidates will prove themselves & put service before self.
I hope the PAP will have a clean sheet from Electoral Complaints at GE2016.

"We cannot lose another George Yeo."

I hope for the GRC system to be replaced with a SMC system to ensure quality & safeguard our national interests.

"Tin Pei Ling is a mistake."

I hope the government will readily apologize for mistakes & carry out remedial actions promptly for issues in the next 5 years.


I hope the new government reads my note as the Prime Minister promises to listen to the new electorate.


Realistically, I don't expect any of the above to happen.


The next lap.
For the politicians who have been labeled "losers" in this elections, I see you as champions in your individual capacity. You have done more than 10,000 citizens would do together, alone. The true measure of a politician is not when he is voted in at a period of peace but what he does towards the next election, just after losing one.

"It doesn't take just one elections for the evolution of government."

I hope to see familiar faces at the next elections, proof of commitment to Public Service & the nation.