General Election 2011 - Vote For Who?

Your vote is secret and it is an offence (I think) to ask anyone who they voted for. However, it's not an offence for one to tell others, right?

Who will I vote for? I don't know since I've to wait for nomination day to determine if there is a walkover.

If I do get a chance to vote and to ask the potential candidates some questions, here's a list:-

1) Why did you want to stand for election?
2) Why did you choose this political party?
3) What will you do for the residents of this area?
4) What will you do for Singapore?
5) What is the one thing that the Singapore government must never compromise no matter what?

Perhaps some of these questions will be addressed during the rally or perhaps when the MP wannabe come round for the house-to-house visit. We'll see.

On a perhaps unrelated matter. Some of you might have read in an earlier post that ape is in the Residents Committee. I made it quite clear to my Chairman that I'll not be involved in any activity the moment GE is announced. That's why ape has some time to blog :p

Past, Present And Future

Actually, ape wanted to use the title of "Know The Past To Understand The Present So As To Plan For The Future" but that seemed a bit long so ape simply cut it short.

Also, to cut this potentially long post short, ape was immersed with this blog http://singaporegovt.blogspot.com for almost the whole night, reading through some of the events that lead to the Singapore that we know today. Ape came across this site because ape had wanted to find out more about this person called Lim Chin Siong. Ape came across this person called Lim Chin Siong because.... nevermind... long story short, ok?

Some years ago, Ape was very surprised when ape came to know that MM Lee became Singapore's PM when he was 35? Gosh! What the hell is ape doing at age 35?

Ape largi more surprised today when ape found out that Lim Chin Siong, at age 21, was already leader of workers, trade union and students. Got elected into legislative assembly a year later and yet another year later, represented PAP for constitutional talks in London. What was ape doing at age 21? Representing a friend to impress a girl for a date... damn.

Besides some history lessons (that are not found in school textbooks) that can be found in the blog mentioned, there's a whole lot more thought provoking matters discussed there. Ape wanted to make that bog as one of the forest ape frequents only to realized that the blog seems to have stopped since 2007... sigh.

Do You Really Need Your CPF Now?

Ape saw "Allow Partial CPF Withdrawals Now" in ST Forum. (Thanks to KTM).

Just to share some thoughts (thoughts meaning ape can be wrong) about the author and following comments to his article.

Gary Teo appear to be someone who is doing relatively well. At least he still has his job and his job allows him to pay off his 5 room HDB flat before 40! His children seems to be around secondary school age. Perhaps his financial crunch will come in 4-6 years time when they really need some money for their children's higher education? However, he did not elaborate further as to the "issue that worries" them. As far as ape is concerned, Mr Gary Teo is someone who does not need the CPF money now.

Comments following the article were mostly arguing, sarcastically, that our CPF should be released to us in times of need. Most of such argument will eventually lead to this,

"The BIG problem is the MIWs think that MOST SGANS dont know how to manage their $$$$... Posted by: NoodleWon at Sat Mar 14 19:02:38 SGT 2009"

Do we? Do we know how to manage our money?

Ape was once like quite a lot of people saying "CPF is MY $$$, why can't I use it when I NEED IT!" Ape still is. No one can argue that your CPF is not yours... unless you were once a victim or accomplice of those schemes where employers "borrowed" elderlies ID to make them their "employees" so as to get some grants/subsidies (ape's a bit hazy on this but I diverted).

The question is when and where can you use it. The answers can be found in CPF webpage. The problem is, some people need their CPF earlier than they are allowed to do so or for other purposes not allowed for in CPF... and so, it came back to this "CPF is MY $$$, why can't I use it when I NEED IT!".

What has changed for ape is the definition of NEED.

About the only people whom ape thinks has a real need to withdraw their CPF monies earlier than what is presribed are people who, by some unfortunate turn of events, have to incur HUGE sums of money for their MEDICAL treatments. Unfortunate turn of events (for medical treatments) include accidents and critical illnesses. If untreated, lead to death. Amounts so huge that their normal savings cannot cover (but adequate in their CPF). Maybe ape is saying this because ape is a smoker and worried that one day... he may get some heart/lung diseases :p Perhaps, ape REALLY should quit smoking... ...

Why not for times like now? Worse economy downturn ever? Loss of jobs? Because, ape thinks, one can save and prepare for such days and they are temporary. A simple solution is to save to an amount equivalent to say 3 times your salary or more. It may take years (took ape a decade to build up this amount... after ape has wasted some years before that) so do it as soon as you draw your first paycheck.

CPF is meant for retirement... for our old age. Thus, we have medisave (for medical cure during old age). We can buy our property, that we can still use in retirement, with CPF (conditions attached though). CPF is not meant for joblessness or bad economy... and certainly not a back up plan for those who don't know how to manage their own money.

Bad times such as loss of jobs? Come on, don't we have enough sense to keep some savings (other than CPF) for such days? Of course such savings won't build up overnight but they will eventually,as long as one watches his expenditure carefully.

"Spend within your means!" Cliche, right? But how many listens?

Ape be honest with you... ape wasn't listening in the past also and felt so angry that Govt don't think ape can manage his own peanuts. Until a elderly kopi-buddy advised ape to pretend that ape don't have CPF, what ape gonna do if he lost his job? Hmmmm... so ape start saving since and ape is reaping the rewards now.

Ooh... ape really finds it hard to believe that over the years, Gary had not built up any personal savings... unless, he doesn't know how to manage his money in which case, should his CPF be released for him to manage himself? Even if it's just a little?

Engaging The Government Online

Previously, ape pointed a few ways to engage the authority and mentioned about bloggers' response to AIMS consultation paper. If you want to know more about what AIMS has been doing, read here, I'm not sure if this is the official website though.

The Government held a press conference to conclude AIMS report. The full report can be found on AIMS website. Or you can be like the ape, read someone else's summary. Ape is too lazy to repeat what is said or written.

However, ape just want to give a bit of his peanuts on one particular area - Reach. Reach is the official Government feedback unit. Ape has been there some time ago but not very active there. Topics were quite boring actually and comments posted by netizens were hardly "thought provoking". Read a lot of "I agree" or "disagree" without further elaboration. Not too sure how are things getting on there...

Anyway, the Minister for Infomation, Communincations and the Arts, said they'll expand the role of Reach and Reach will still remain "as its authoritative online source to engage Netizens [... as opposed to...] wandering the whole of the Internet just to debunk every single misleading or wrong posting" (Today, 10 Jan 09, words in brackets by ape).

Some may see it as Government limiting it's engagements with the online community but ape feels it's purely for practical reasons.

Who To Engage?
First, which online community or blog, should Government engage? Even if we zoom down to social political blogs, which one? Perhaps there's only a handful of good social political blogs now but what happens when there's more?

"Eh, why gahmen respond to The Online Citizen but not my blog, Talk Only Cock, har? Same same what! they TOC, I orso TOC leh?"

Who's This?
Besides that, if, for example, ape decides to talk about social-political issues only and one fine day, some one allegely from the Government decides to engage in discussions here. Ape will think - "Are you really who you are?" and so ape check with the respective ministry to confirmation and everytime this person post then everytime ape need to check... because ape can't really know if this person is still the same person who last posted. Ape no time to count peanuts!

And what if readers of ape read here that ape is discussing with someone from the Governement, won't the readers think "Is this reeeaaaaal?!?! Or is this ape trying to impress and boost his readership to earn advertisement?" and so they'll check with the Government... one reader one letter, 10 readers 10 letters? Government no time to count peanuts... oops, Government not like ape, they don't count peanuts.

And if say, supposing someone uses the inital LKY and claims that he is a civil servant and gave his comments here, do I really want to enquire from the ministries if this "LKY" is really from the civil service? And is he or perhaps she writing in personal capacity or as "Government"?

So, ape still think it is better to go to Reach if one wants to seek Governments engagement. At least netizens (readers and posters) know respond is from Government and Government need not appear to be bias by visiting some online forum but not the others. Win-win?

Engaging The Authority

Once again, we hear the all too often "respect the authority"... probably more often in the year 2008 when we have a number of cases where the Singapore Court was challenged or questioned in several cases.

During the opening of the legal year 2009 in Singapore's Supreme Court, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong reiterate that the courts requires its authority to be respected by all (read this).

I do agree with CJ Chan. For the court or any authority to carry out their duty effectively, a certain form of respect must be accorded. Hurling insults, making false and scandalous allegations certainly impedes the authority. However, I must add that respect should not only come from the people, respect must come from the law enforcers, the authority themselves, i.e. all, everyone. Those holding public office should also respect the authority accorded to them and not abuse their powers. The people have to respect the authority and not make false or scandalous allegations.

What if we don't agree with certain laws? What if we don't agree with how the authority applies the law? Can't we voice it out? Sure we can... but how? Protest? Even if it's peaceful?

Attorney General Prof Walter Woon also spoke about the need to protect the integrity of the judicial system.

"He said that while freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed in the Constitution, the line is crossed 'where a person deliberately attempts to undermine the authority of the courts by casting aspersions on the integrity of the judges in order to further a political or ideological agenda'[...]'I can only conclude they were testing our resolve and probing to see how far we could be intimidated by their tactics,'" (Straits Times, 4 Jan 2009)

said Prof Woon with reference to a group of activists at the Attorney-General's Chambers the demanding the return of items seized by police investigating certain offences, with threats of sit-ins and protests.

Why is it so important to protect the integrity of the judicial system?

If the authority is seen to be intimdated, they'll loose all credibility. Common people like this ape will simply think "Ah? Like that also can ah? So next time I buay song (not satisfied) I can also kow peh cow bu la (rant or protest publicly)!"

You see, the point is, not everyone understands the cause(s) taken by activists. Even less people will know the true intent of such "activists". (Note: I use activists broadly to include politicians or anyone who go into the streets and kow peh kow bu as well as those who don't kow peh kow bu). Sadly, what some people will see is that a group of people not happy and they make a lot of noise and the authority give in to their demand, and therefore, conclude that if you want your demands met, make a lot of noise?

So how should we engage the authority if we cannot make our opinion heard through protest? If there's something I felt strongly about, a change in certain policy or law that I feel that is absolutely necessary, what can I do?

Law Minister K.Shanmugam mentioned one... a difficult one where not all can meet.

"The way to change the law was to get elected politically and argue in Parliament why the law should be changed" (Straits Times, 4 Jan 2009).

However, that is not the only way. You can go for Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP). Even if you can't be an NMP, you can talk to your MP during Meet the People Session and request your MP to raise it in Parliament. Or you can approach one of the NMP to raise it, like what some did when they petition to repeal Section 377A through NMP Siew Kum Hong. Sometimes, you may not need to raise your concerns in parliament through a proxy for matters on a smaller scale. You can write to the authority concerned, privately, seek their views and perhaps publish in your blog if you want to for sharing with fellow citizens. Someone like Dharmendra Yadav in Think Happiness. You can also present your feedback through Reach, the official Government's online portal for feedback. Last but not least is to organise yourselves to submit your proposal in response to public consultation papers like what 13 bloggers did in response to the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS).

The above examples are some of the proper channels to engage the authority. They are non-aggressive measures that we can do. Look at it this way, what is our objective? To achieve a certain intentionally good outcome, right? Would you go bang table and demand change, in the process making those in-charge loose face put up defences immediately? Or would you be consultative and engaged the decision makers politely and amicably to seek an ideal resolution?

To close this off, I politely request that you watch Anna and the King (starring Jodie Foster as Anna Leonowens and Chow Yun-Fatt as Siam King Mongkut). In a particular scene, where Tuptim (King's concubine?) was sentenced to death, Anna cried babaric! outrageous! "I will speak to the King!" publicly in the court. What she did was effectively sealing Tuptim's doom. The King, who had the authority to pardon a death-roll convict, was no longer able to do so because his subjects would think that he was led by the nose by a woman... and a foreign one. The King would loose the faith and credibility to lead his country... even though he was a wise monarch and he too, need to respect the law of the country.