Yuhui's Singapore Blogger

New durian stall in the northeast

2012-05-27T01:21:00.003+08:00

Recently, the main durian stall somewhere in the north-east had closed shop, much to the chagrin of durian lovers in that neighbourhood. Apparently, the owner had suddenly disappeared one night. As a result, two durian stalls had set up shop there, attempting to take over the position as the main seller of durians there.

Being a durian lover, I went to check out the two durian stalls. When I arrived at the market, I saw that a lot of people were crowding within and outside both stalls. Noticing that one was slightly less crowded, I went there first.

"Hey, it's you!" a familiar voice called out to me. I turned around and -- lo! -- I saw my usual durian seller. With his hair gelled back and dressed in all-white, he cut a fine figure amidst the hustle and bustle. I could barely recognize him, but I assumed correctly that he was trying to make a good impression among the shoppers so that he could cement his position there.

"Come in, come in!" he said jovially, ushering me into his stall before I could utter anything. "Long time no see, hor!"

"Actually, I had just bought some durians from you last year," I pointed out.

"Aiyah, last year was last year. This year is this year. I got good durians for you." And then in a louder voice with arms outspread, he declared, "I got good durians for everyone!"

Surprisingly, not many people cheered. They were more interested in getting the free samples that his employees were handing out.

"Business looks good," I remarked. "Think you can do well enough to stay here permanently?"

"Got good chance, lah," he said with a wide grin. "You think that other group got chance meh? Their last guy anyhow run away, let the business down. Like that you can trust that group one, har?"

Then in a more serious tone, he said, "Then this new guy that they want to run the stall, I heard things about him. I tell you, he is no good one lah. I heard last time, when that group wanted to set up a stall in East Coast Park, this guy was one of the few that they had considered to be the owner. But my guys heard him say that he all along never wanted to be the owner there."

He shook his head with disgust. "You tell me, who is telling the truth? They all cannot trust one lah." He waved his hand in a dismissing manner.

Then he gave me a big white bag. I looked inside and saw four white boxes. "Nah, take! My best durian," he said. "Don't say I never give you goodies!"

I thought about how generous he was to give away his durian just like that. But before I could thank him, a group of aunties suddenly rushed into the stall. I saw that they had arrived in buses from the rest of the island. Wow, either this stall was so popular that people were coming from everywhere, or these aunties had been incentivized to come here.

Whatever the case may be, the stall was getting too crowded for my liking, and anyway, I hadn't checked out the other stall yet. So I made my way there. It was crowded too, and the customers were louder and more boisterous, but the atmosphere seemed light-hearted and relaxed.

I happened to catch the eye of the new stall owner. "Hi there," he said happily. "Thanks for coming. How can I help you?"

Though his blue shirt was stained with perspiration and he clearly looked tired, he was able to keep up his positive demeanour. I was amazed by it.

"I have some good quality durians," he continued. "Probably not as good as the other guy's, but they're just as delicious. Anyway, I always say that when you eat durian, you are not just enjoying the fruit, but also taking in the entire experience."

Then in a coy manner, he said, "That's my tagline lah: We may live in third world country, but my durian will make you feel first world!" He laughed at that and I chuckled with him. It had a cute and catchy ring to it.

"Any free samples?" I enquired hopefully.

"Sorry, lah," he said. "I don't give out samples to buy your loyalty."

That was honest of him to say. In the end, I bought six boxes of durian from him, which he packed up in a blue plastic bag.

When I arrived home, I ate the durians from the blue bag first. There weren't as many fruit in each box as I had hoped. The fruit themselves were small, though fleshy. But as I sunk my teeth into the fruit, I recalled what the stall owner had said about savouring the entire experience. I closed my eyes and imagined a first world paradise with delicious durian everywhere. It was a nice dream.

Then I tried the fruit from a white box. I was amazed when I saw how many durian fruits had been packed into it. And they all looked so big and yummy! Instantly, I grabbed one and bit into it. Alas! The seed inside was also large, so that there was really only a little fruit coating it. It was a bittersweet affair and I wondered how my long-time durian seller could sell such deceptive fruit.

In the end, I settled down with my blue boxes of durian. Not so sweet, not so tender, but I could dream of durian paradise, couldn't I?

--

ST Forum letter: "MOE missed the point on pay-cut policy"

2011-09-03T22:29:00.001+08:00

A few weeks ago, the Straits Times (ST) published a story about the salary cut that retired teachers would earn if they were re-employed by the Ministry of Education. There was a lot of unhappiness about it and I added my two cents' worth with the following ST Forum letter.

Here's a comparison of what I had emailed to the Straits Times and how it was finally published.

~~Why MOE should rehire retirees without pay cuts~~ MOE missed the point on pay-cut policy

~~I refer to the article, "MOE clears the air over pay cut for rehired teachers" (ST, 9 August).~~

I was disappointed to read the Ministry of Education's (MOE) response on the issue of salary cuts for rehired teachers ('MOE clears the air over pay cut for rehired teachers'; Tuesday).

(new paragraph) ~~MOE~~ The ministry has ~~failed to grasp~~ not grasped the nature of the public ~~outcry~~ criticism against ~~this move~~ its policy. ~~This~~ The criticism was never about the percentage of the cut~~. Instead, it was that~~, but about whether there ~~was even~~ should have been a pay cut in the first place for ~~these~~ rehired teachers.

(bullet point) ~~Firstly~~ First, a salary is the measure of an employee's value to his employer. By cutting the pay of rehired teachers, ~~MOE implies~~ the ministry is implying that ~~they~~ these teachers are not as valuable ~~to the teaching fraternity~~.

This is in spite of their many years of professional teaching experience that can be put to valuable use in our schools to nurture our children.

(bullet point) ~~Secondly~~ Second, ~~MOE said~~ the ministry stated that ~~it cut~~ cutting their salaries ~~to allow for "~~ would offer rehired teachers greater flexibility and lighter responsibilities ~~so that they (rehired teachers) can have~~, thereby offering them more time ~~for~~ with family and to pursue other personal interests."

(new paragraph) This implies that rehired teachers who ~~are able to continue to~~ can perform the ~~same job scope as~~ way as they did before retirement do not have this option any more.

(new paragraph) Instead, MOE has placed the cart (salaries) before the horse (retirees' abilities). It has ~~reverted to a "government knows best" mentality and~~ diminished the retirees' choices for re-employment.

~~MOE~~ The ministry has set a ~~very dangerous~~ precedent for other ~~organizations~~ organisations once the Retirement and Re-Employment Act takes effect in January.

(new paragraph) ~~It signals~~ The signal MOE is sending is that it reduced pay is the "new normal~~" to offer reduced salaries~~ when rehiring retirees, in spite of ~~retirees'~~ their experiences and abilities.

(new paragraph) I hope ~~that MOE~~ the ministry will review its pay-cut policy ~~of cutting rehired teachers' salaries, especially in letting them~~ and let rehired staff have more say in their terms of re-employment.

At least this letter wasn't as badly censored as my last submission on my concerns over the children of foreign brides. Some things I learned from this letter:

It is all right to use bullet points.
The British spelling of "organisations" is with an "s", not a "z". Though I have been led to understand that both forms are acceptable.
I don't know why the editor prefers "the ministry" to the initials "MOE", since the latter is only one "word" and uses fewer letters (and thus ink, which helps SPH to save on newsprint cost). But if that's how it's done, then I'll do that in future.
Brevity is preferred over explicit description, e.g. the last two paragraphs.
DO NOT cast the government in a bad light! No negative adjectives nor labels!

Singapore General Elections 2011 - debriefing - impact on Government

2011-05-22T18:14:00.000+08:00

In previous entries, I covered the following topics:

And this weekend saw the culmination of the fall-out from the elections. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his new Cabinet were sworn in by President S.R. Nathan on Saturday night. This new Cabinet sees the departure of long-time ministers and appointment or promotion of new ones.

This Cabinet is supposed to reflect PM Lee's realization that it can no longer be "business as usual" after the elections. Widespread displeasure and unhappiness were directly translated into the PAP's historically low vote share of 60.14%. Therefore, PM Lee really had no choice but to shake up his Cabinet massively to address the people's woes.

Some cynics will say that it was just a game of musical chairs. After all, the Cabinet is still comprised of pretty much the same people. It's just that this time, those familiar faces are now leading different ministries. So the same ideas could still circulate in the upper echelons of Government, which will lead to more of the same ol' policies that have led Singapore to this current situation.

Whatever the arguments for-and-against the new appointments, one thing is for certain: this new Cabinet will very likely face robust Parliamentary sessions. There will be nine opposition members in the legislative assembly, six of them directly elected by the people. With some bright minds there, for example, in Chen Show Mao and Pritam Singh, we can expect some intelligent debates over government policies. And if PM Lee is true to his word about inclusiveness, we can expect less rebuttal over the opposition's suggestions and more discussions – and maybe even compromises – to formulate policies that are in the best interests of every Singaporean.

Reflections on a few Cabinet departures
Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong jointly announced their retirement from Cabinet at the beginning of the week. Their aim, they said, was to allow the younger generation of ministers to have a more free reign in governing the country, without having a senior statesman looking over their shoulders.

Indeed, it will be interesting to see both men occupying the back benches in the next seating of Parliament, together with fellow retirees Wong Kan Seng and Mah Bow Tan. Based on their announcements, I believe that we won't be hearing very much from them at upcoming sessions. Once in a while, though, I'm sure that they will give voice to laws or policies that interest them. But it is their general silence that will truly mark the end of a political era in Singapore.

Anyway, though they are gone from Cabinet, they are still not far from the gears of power. Mr Lee will be a senior adviser at the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, where he has been chairman in years past, and Mr Goh will also be a senior adviser, though at the Monetary Authority of Singapore. With Singapore as a financial hub, these two organizations are extremely important to Singapore's continued success, so having these two men there means that they will still wield vast influence over Singapore's destiny.

Unlike these two men, George Yeo will be marching into the sunset, at least for the time being. After having lost his Aljunied constituency at the elections, he has had to vacate his position as Minister of Foreign Affairs too (ministers are appointed from Members of Parliament).

Much has been said about all of the good work that he has done in his years in Government. In fact, for almost a week after the elections, the mainstream media did nothing except talk about Mr Yeo. The thing to remember about Singapore is that no minister has ever been forced to retire because of an election loss. The closest that we came was when Dr Seet Ai Mee lost her elections. But she was in a caretaker role then as an Acting Minister. Mr Yeo, on the other hand, has been a full-fledged minister for years. So it was as if the press did not know how to react to this unprecedented event, and turned on its glow machine to the brightest.

Nonetheless, it is really sad to see such an intelligent man leave the Cabinet. Unfortunately, he was a victim of the democratic process. But he has been a gentleman to the end, from his final press interview as Minister to his quiet and humble way of leaving office. Even though he is leaving politics (apparently, PAP ministers don't think about fighting back at the next elections, since Mrs Lim Hwee Hua is also quitting politics), I believe that the Government will still find some use for him, most likely as an ambassador or a representative to an international organization.

So it is that we bid a fond farewell to Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong and George Yeo from Cabinet. And there'll be no love lost with Mah Bow Tan and Raymond Lim's departures. It is now time to see how PM Lee's new Cabinet leads Singapore for the next five years and remake it into the jewel of Southeast Asia.

--

Singapore General Elections 2011 - debriefing - embracing the opposition?

2011-05-17T23:43:00.000+08:00

In my last post, I talked about the rise of the Workers' Party (WP), even though it seemed to be aspiring to be more than the bread-and-butter party that it has always been. In doing so, it somehow connected with the electorate and won six seats out of the available 82 Parliamentary seats up for contest. In recent events, it has also taken two Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMP) seats, giving it a whopping eight seats in opposition to the People's Action Party (PAP).

In a twist of fate, the WP also saw the resignation of stalwart Eric Tan, the party treasurer, because the party had not selected him for one of the NCMP seats. Though I believe that the WP will overcome this setback, I'm amused that this news came after I had remarked in my last post that I didn't see any signs of disunity in the party.

The mainstream media has focused on the WP's resurgence as an indication that the political tide is shifting towards a stronger opposition movement in Singapore. Looking at the General Elections results, where the PAP won only 60.14% of the vote share, there might be some truth to that claim. But I don't think that was the case.

Chiam See Tong and his Singapore People's Party (SPP)

Like the WP's Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong took a huge gamble by running in a group representation constituency (GRC) at Bishan-Toa Payoh. His team was up against Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng's slate, which also included Education Minister Ng Eng Hen.

Alas, his SPP team won only 43.07% of the vote in Bishan-Toa Payoh, thus failing to capture the GRC. Some would say that the odds were in Mr Chiam's favour, from his own immense popularity to the backlash against DPM Wong in the Mas Selamat escape. Having government scholar, Benjamin Pwee, might also have helped Mr Chiam's team gain some intellectual cred.
But notice how I keep referring to Mr Chiam and not the SPP. I think that was the main weakness for this slate. The SPP has been wholly defined by the personality cult built around Chiam See Tong. After all, the party was established for him when he left the Singapore Democratic Party. Since then, Mr Chiam has been singularly responsible for the party's actions, including trying to include the Reform Party in the Singapore Democratic Alliance and, when that failed, pulling the SPP out of the alliance. These culminated in the leadership feuds that saw Mr Chiam standing victorious – but alone.

So I think it didn't help the party's image when a feeble Mr Chiam campaigned for the election. After his stroke, he has been unable to project himself physically. Though his mind is still sharp, his voice is frail. Listening to his speeches at the rallies was painful, because one couldn't help but be reminded of all that this man had achieved in politics before his stroke.

Thus, Mr Chiam's 27-year run in Parliament is over, and the SPP's sole representative in the legislative body is Mr Chiam's wife, Lina Chiam, who took the NCMP seat for her loss in Potong Pasir. This too doesn't bode well for the SPP, if her televised appearances and rally speeches are anything to go by. I hope a miracle will happen that will transform Mrs Chiam from a crutch for her husband to a gleaming pearl in the opposition benches, and thus restore the SPP's reputation.

Kenneth Jeyaratnam's Reform Party (RP)

Another opposition party that is built around a personality cult is also one of the newest political parties in Singapore. The RP was founded by veteran opposition politician, J.B. Jeyaratnam. After his untimely passing, his son, Kenneth, took over the party leadership. Since then, the party has been run in a way that it is a reflection of the man's thinking and beliefs.

Like the SPP, friction arose in the RP's top leadership, which resulted in a mass resignation of nine members only two months into 2011. This obviously was not a good omen since everyone was certain that this year was going to be an election year. Up till that point, I thought that the RP had built up quite a good platform and reputation as a beacon for change in Singapore. But now, I see the RP only as a vehicle for Kenneth Jeyaratnam's personal political ambitions.

Disclosure: I had joined a RP walkabout in a housing estate in late January. That was how I met Tony Tan, who was then planning to run on the RP's slate in that area, Kumar Appavoo and Jeannette Aruldoss. (I don't think any of them remembers me now.)

It is hard to believe how the RP could rebuild in time for the elections, and the results apparently show it to be the case. Somehow, it was able to field 11 candidates in two GRCs, but its Ang Mo Kio team, which was reportedly assembled just before Nomination Day to challenge Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's PAP team, was clearly not up to the task. Its "A team" in West Coast, led by party leader Kenneth Jeyaratnam, could only garner 33.43% of the vote there.

Unless the RP is able to rebuild itself around a platform rather than a personality, I don't see how it will be able to succeed politically, even with the association of the familiar Jeyaratnam name.

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) and its Nicole Seah factor

Like the SPP and RP, the NSP was defined by a personality cult during the election campaign. Unlike those those two parties, though, the NSP's personality cult was built not around a leader, but a young, eloquent and rather fetching candidate. It is no wonder then that the PAP's Goh Chok Tong remarked that "NSP" stood for "Nicole Seah Party", much to the consternation of the party's leaders.

As soon as Ms Seah burst onto the political scene, her popularity went nowhere but up and up. She came across as an articulate politician who could think as clearly as any PAP candidate. Her youthful exuberance came across in her photographs, videos and speeches. And, of course, she was easy on the eyes, much to the delight of many male (and maybe some female) voters.

How popular did she become? Her Facebook page eventually gained more likes than PAP strongman, Lee Kuan Yew. In a creepy development, some people became enamoured with a picture of her wiping off her perspiration!

Of course, there was also the Tin Pei Ling factor. Ms Seah was part of the NSP team that stood in Marine Parade, where Ms Tin was also fielded as part of the PAP slate. It was a no-brainer when comparing the video interviews of both of these young female candidates. Ms Tin came across as an automaton who didn't know how to respond to questions that weren't part of the script. Ms Seah, on the other hand, spoke in a calm and composed manner like a seasoned politician in a way that showed her intelligence clearly.

It was also refreshing to watch such a young person speak so forcefully against the ruling party. In an Asian society, that would be akin to a young upstart rebuking a senior person – it's just not done. But Ms Seah connected with her audience and spoke to their disillusionment with the PAP. As a result, her attacks on the PAP were not seen as a sign of disrespect, but as a voice for the oppressed. In the end, her team won a respectable 43.36% of the vote in Marine Parade.

And what of the rest of the NSP? Really, what of it? It boasted government scholars Tony Tan and Hazel Poa, who were from the RP. It had veteran politicians like Goh Meng Seng leading the charge. It came close to getting an NCMP seat through Jeanette Aruldoss. But you won't hear of these party achievements, because the party was overshadowed by Nicole Seah.

Mr Goh has talked about rebuilding the party and rethinking its strategy. I look forward to its development. I think the NSP has the potential to become a pillar in the opposition camp, together with the WP. But it needs to figure out how to break away from its unexpected personality cult around Ms Seah.

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)

One opposition party that turned its image around successfully during the elections was the SDP. Once upon a time, following the departure of its founder, Chiam See Tong, the SDP was defined by the antics of its leader, Chee Soon Juan. His attempts to bring about democratic change through protests failed to sway the populace to his side.

But in what could be regarded as a complete break from that era, the SDP kept Mr Chee to the background and campaigned on a platform of reform (some may say it was more about reform than the Reform Party!). Its strategy was not only to point out where the PAP had gone wrong, but to bring up bold proposals to propel Singapore forward politically and, surprisingly, economically.

Indeed, the biggest change for the SDP was to talk about improving Singaporeans' livelihoods economically. The biggest one was Mr Tan Jee Say's proposal about shifting Singapore's economy fundamentally from manufacturing to services. It was such a huge change in mindset that the PAP itself could not wrap its head around it, forcing it to wax eloquent about manufacturing.

Unfortunately, the SDP was not able to find its support. Its most popular team in Holland-Bukit Timah could only get 39.92% of the vote there. I think that this was because the party had forgotten a fundamental facet of Singapore politics: the need to connect personally with the voters. Its proposals were probably too lofty for the average voter to comprehend. The SDP did not work the ground in the constituencies that it contested. And so the voters didn't know who these people were until it was time for the elections.

But regardless of these setbacks, I think that the SDP has found its footing once again and is embarking on the correct path. As its candidate Michelle Lee implied, it would be dark days ahead if the party returns to it being used by Mr Chee for his own "democratic" ambitions.

The Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA)
Once believed to be a force to be reckoned with, the SDA is nothing more than a joke today.

And that remark sums up my thinking about opposition politics in Singapore. I don't think Singapore has reached the stage yet where the electorate is embracing the opposition wholeheartedly. Singapore politics is still defined by basic bread-and-butter issues and candidate popularity. The average voter is still a simple minded person who likes to be entertained but also desires familiarity.

If they want to replicate the WP's success in Parliament, then the opposition parties need to get their act together and actively portray themselves as champions for the common man, instead of aiming for lofty goals. Connect with the people personally, and they could go far politically.

--

Singapore General Elections 2011 - debriefing - WP's bold move

2011-05-17T00:36:00.003+08:00

At the recent Singapore General Elections 2011, the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) garnered a respectable 60.14% of the vote share and 81 out of 87 seats in Parliament, comfortably returning to power and continuing to form the government since Singapore's independence in 1965.

However, as many have noted, the 60.14% vote share can be regarded as a disappointment to the party, as it is the lowest vote share that it has ever received in all elections, not to mention the low vote share for three of its supposed powerhouse ministers, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng and Minister of National Development, Mah Bow Tan. While national issues like the cost of living and influx of foreigners were to blame, the PAP also found itself being nipped at its heels by an opposition that took full advantage of the people's unhappiness.

And as usual, leading the opposition pack was the veteran political party, the Workers' Party (WP). The WP is Singapore's oldest political party, dating back to when it was the Labour Party, which formed Singapore's first government under self-rule. Today, the WP is still highly regarded politically even if it is no longer calling the shots.

This year, the WP unveiled an admirable line-up of candidates. Besides familiar names like Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim, it also boasted having highly intelligent, capable and articulate candidates. The PAP and media immediately highlighted its "star catch", Chen Show Mao, a top lawyer who had spent almost all of his adult life overseas, and was currently based in China.

Backing up this stellar line-up was the party manifesto, headlined by the bold vision, "Towards a First World Parliament". All of its candidates stuck to this platform throughout the campaigning period. At every speech, each candidate pointed out what was wrong with the PAP's policies and pointed out how the WP could be an effective check to ensure transparency and accountability. This was what the WP meant by a First World Parliament - where there are checks and balances within the legislature to ensure that the executive is at tip-top shape.

My reaction to the manifesto
However, I had wondered whether "Towards a First World Parliament" was too "airy-fairy" for the general voter. I think that, considering the hardship that the people were experiencing, they would have wanted to hear more about the WP's solutions about bread-and-butter issues. I only recall that the WP candidates touched upon their plan for mitigating housing prices (by pegging them to the median income of qualifying households) and limiting the admission of foreign workers (through a cap per industry).

I was also troubled by what had happened at the press conference when the WP unveiled its manifesto. The panel consisted of Chairperson Lim and a few members of the executive council. Secretary-General Low was pictured seated among the audience. Why would the party leader be in the audience instead of on the stage? Perhaps he wanted the younger party leaders to lead the charge. Maybe he didn't want to overload the panel by including himself and Ms Lim together.

But at the back of my mind, there was always this nagging conclusion: that Mr Low didn't fully agree with the manifesto. The idea of a "First World Parliament" sounds like something that an intellectual, such as Ms Lim, could come up with. Mr Low, on the other hand, is regarded as more down-to-earth and pragmatic. Thus, he could not fully support such a lofty manifesto that did not speak to the average man-on-the-street.

Reassurance of the WP's unity, discipline and strategy
So, throughout the campaign, I was worried that the WP would see a drop in its support because people just couldn't understand what a First World Parliament meant to their immediate livelihoods. And I was worried that a split within the WP might surface. Fortunately, I was wrong. At several rallies, Mr Low spoke as forcefully, if not more so, than his party colleagues and always ended with a strong "Towards a First World Parliament!"

Mr Low even left his bastion at Hougang to stand with Sylvia Lim and three other party members, including Mr Chen, against the PAP in Aljunied. If this wasn't a sign of party solidarity, I don't know what was. Mr Low could definitely have stayed on in Hougang, where he would have no problem being re-elected. (Indeed, his protege, Yaw Shin Leong, had a comfortable 64% of the constituency's vote share to win the poll there.)

In the end, Mr Low's gamble and the WP's bold mission were handsomely rewarded. The WP won the opposition's first-ever group representation constituency in Aljunied, unseating a popular PAP anchor minister, George Yeo. Its two party leaders will remain in Parliament (Ms Lim was a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) previously), and will be joined by their "star catch", Mr Chen. Together with Pritam Singh and Faisal Abdul Manap and Mr Yaw from Hougang (and its two NCMPs, if the party accepts the offer), I think we can expect some lively political debates in Parliament.

The WP's election result is good for Singapore. It indicates the country's baby steps into democratic maturity by recognizing that the nation is not defined by a single political party. The six (or eight) seats that the WP has in Parliament will also give it a strong foundation upon which to build towards the next election and beyond. And the voters' willingness to support it in spite of what may be a high falutin' manifesto possibly shows that the electorate isn't necessarily defined by the lowest common denominator, but can appreciate the bigger political picture. There is no need to worry or repent over for the next five years.

If the WP can achieve such a feat, do the other opposition parties also have the same opportunity? In my next post, I'll share my thoughts on the prospects of these political parties.

Disclosure: I volunteered to be a polling agent for the Workers' Party in East Coast. However, this entry is entirely my own personal viewpoint. It is in no way acknowledged nor endorsed by the WP.

--

Singapore General Elections 2011 - debriefing - PAP's big 3 losses

2011-05-12T00:33:00.001+08:00

In my last blog entry, I had noted the significance the People's Action Party's 60.14% vote share in the General Elections when considering the large proportion of the electorate that could vote.

So that's the mandate on the national level. However, votes can also be influenced at the local level, as in, whether the running candidates can meet voters' expectations in managing their constituency well and acting as good representatives for them in Parliament.

At the local level, I think the three biggest "losers" for the PAP were Marine Parade, Bishan-Toa Payoh and Tampines.

Background
First, a short background on my thinking. Generally, an election is rarely clean-cut. It is not simply about national issues or constituency upkeep or a popularity contest. It is about all of these… and more.

In Singapore, though, I think that national issues and candidate popularity take on even more significant weight. Being a small country, everyone is almost directly influenced by national policies. For example, a transport fare review is not implemented per constituency, but islandwide. Or, when the Housing and Development Board (HDB) adjusts its formula for determining housing prices, that formula is implemented on flats everywhere, not just in one particular area.

Candidate popularity also becomes important in Singapore, and this is mainly because of the cult-like status that the PAP ascribes to its members. PAP members, especially ministers, are treated with awe by the mainstream media. For the large proportion of the population that still depends on mainstream media for news and entertainment, this veneer of reverence is impressed on them as well. (Aside: I think this in part is why a lot of people still hold faith that the PAP can do no wrong.)

Singapore has another quirk in its democratic system: the group representation constituency (GRC). In this scheme, voters within a constituency elect a group of people, usually four to six candidates. The PAP's strategy for the GRC is to ensure that there is at least one Cabinet minister in each group, acting as the "anchor" candidate.

During the General Elections, the PAP constantly chided the Workers' Party (WP) for forcing the Aljunied voters into an emotional dilemma: choosing between the PAP and the WP. In truth, all GRCs are emotional dilemmas. If a group has one popular candidate but a dud for another candidate, voters are forced to decide if the popular candidate is worth voting for at the risk of also having the dud in Parliament.

So for me, between the two factors of national issues and popularity, Singapore elections are even more influenced by the candidates' popularity.

Marine Parade - 56.65% constituency vote share
This aspect of candidate popularity was most evident in Marine Parade. Helmed by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, the PAP team there was thought of to be virtually unassailable. SM Goh had been widely regarded as "the people's prime minister" back in the 1990s, so he should have had a smooth ride into Parliament. (Aside: whenever I see that phrase, I think "communism".)

However, during the election, SM Goh had made several statements that must have left voters scratching their heads. One day, he had some nasty remarks for Tan Jee Say, a candidate from the Singapore Democratic Party, who was his private secretary when he was prime minister. The next day, he gave a glowing review of Mr Tan. Then, when he was complimenting George Yeo, SM Goh inadvertently cast doubts on the capabilities of his fellow Cabinet ministers.

There could be other reasons too. Some may also blame SM Goh for setting Singapore on the path to its current situation when he was prime minister. Others may be wondering what's going on beneath his constant smile and gentlemanly demeanour. Or they may simply just not like him as much as, say, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean.

So I don't believe that the 56.65% vote share was just because of national issues, or Ms Tin Pei Ling's poor voter reception (who might be regarded as the "dud" in my example above), or even the star power of the Nicole Seah, the candidate for the National Solidarity Party that stood against the PAP in Marine Parade. I think there were more stand-out reasons.

Bishan-Toa Payoh - 56.94% constituency vote share
This was another constituency where the PAP took a hit because of the popularity of its anchor minister, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng. Unlike SM Goh, DPM Wong said the right words and did the right things during his campaign. He was also up against a well respected veteran opposition candidate, Mr Chiam See Tong.

But then, there is always Mas Selamat. Or rather, the escape of terrorist Mas Selamat. Or rather, the quick dismissal of blame for letting a lame man escape from jail, as ridiculous as that sounds. In safe and secure Singapore, Mas Selamat's escape was a splash of cold water on our collective face. So when Singaporeans needed someone to blame for splashing that cold water, all fingers pointed at DPM Wong.

Many expected the punishment to fit the blame. Perhaps seeing how other countries had done, they demanded DPM Wong's resignation. Of course, he didn't throw in the towel. Instead, the PAP-led Government explained what happened in the escape, assigned blame to and fired the prison officials, and said in Parliament, "Let's move on".

But from the 56.94% vote share, Bishan-Toa Payoh voters were most likely not ready to move on. Also, that constituency had not one, but two ministers, the other being Minister of Education, Ng Eng Hen. That raised the stakes for voters, and it would seem that while they were willing to punish DPM Wong, they weren't ready to lose two ministers in one fell swoop.

Tampines - 57.22% constituency vote share
Like Bishan-Toa Payoh, I think you need not look further than the anchor minister, Mah Bow Tan. As the Minister for National Development since 1999, he has also governed over the HDB, and therefore earned the wrath of voters who were unhappy with expensive housing prices. Mr Mah is a man who speaks straight from his head, which may be perceived as being blunt or even arrogant.

At the start of the elections campaigning period, Mr Mah already found himself on the defensive, having to defend the HDB's policies and pricing of new flats. This was covered extensively by the mainstream media and that should have been that. But the relentless raising of the cost of housing throughout the campaign ensured that the issue remained top-of-mind.

And even when Mr Mah and the PAP refuted the opposition parties' solutions for lowering housing costs, it always seemed like the people just weren't buying their reasons. At the end of the day, I think Tampines voters voted with their pockets, and that caused the PAP's vote share in Tampines to be below their national vote share.

Some may also blame the PAP's moving of Baey Yam Keng to that constituency at the last minute. That might be perceived as the party's failure to plan properly, and given them last-minute jitters. But if that was a factor, I don't think it was a big one. Throughout the elections, the issue was squarely on housing costs, and unfortunately, the PAP anchor minister in Tampines was the man in charge of housing.

What about Joo Chiat (51.01%)?
PAP candidate Charles Chong was transplanted to Joo Chiat only days before Nomination Day, so he probably didn't have enough time to build rapport with the voters there. Thus, I would ascribe his narrow win to a genuine tussle between the PAP and WP brands. In this case, the PAP brand had the slight edge, thus giving Mr Chong his win.

What about Aljunied (45.29%)?
I would put the PAP's loss here to two overriding reasons: the WP's diligent effort at working the ground there for the last five years, and the voters there who heeded the call for an opposition voice in Parliament. Yes, you could blame George Yeo for the loss, but I wouldn't, because I can't find anything in the last five years or even before where he had made any big political missteps.

If looking at the popularity factor, then Aljunied's loss may have been due to the presence of another minister in the PAP line-up, Ms Lim Hwee Hua. As Second Minister for Transport, she may have taken the brunt of the people's displeasure at rising transport costs (something that Minister for Transport, Raymond Lim, miraculously survived).

But I think the PAP's loss of Aljunied was due to the WP. In my next post, I'll share my thoughts about the stalwart WP and its performance at General Elections 2011.

--

Singapore General Elections 2011 - debriefing - PAP's 60% mandate

2011-05-10T00:48:00.006+08:00

In the Singapore General Elections on Saturday, 7 May 2011, the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) continued its winning streak by winning 76 out of the 82 contested seats. Together with the five walkover seats from Tanjong Pagar, it has 81 seats in Parliament for the next five years.

More significantly, voters gave it an overall 60.14% of the share of votes. This is the lowest vote share that the PAP has ever won since independence. The previous low was 61% in the 1991 elections. Back then, the economy was doing well, people were generally comfortable, and Goh Chok Tong had just taken over as Prime Minister, so perhaps that's why the people were more comfortable in giving the opposition a chance.

Vote share in reference to the number of participating voters

But I'd like to look at the PAP's 60.14% vote share from another perspective. This year, 82 out of 87 Parliamentary seats were contested by the opposition. This was unprecedented. For years, the opposition had always allowed the PAP to win half or more of the available seats, a strategy that was termed as the "by-election strategy". The belief was that when voters saw that the PAP had been returned to power on Nomination Day, then they would be more willing to vote for the opposition.

The flipside of this was that less than half of the electorate would have a chance to "speak up" through the ballot box. After the 2006 elections, I had worked out what was the effective vote share for the entire electorate. I had worked out that the 66.6% vote share that the PAP had won translated to only about 34.64% of the electorate share. And this was because about half of the electorate couldn't vote due to walkovers in their constituencies.

(Incidentally, in that five-year-old post, I had also correctly predicted PAP's loss of Aljunied!)

So in a way, because of the walkovers, no one has ever really had a good idea of the overall size of the ruling party's vote share, which would be the mandate that they were looking for. This year, the PAP got that answer. I haven't worked out the maths yet, but with 82 out of 87 contested seats, that means the overwhelming majority of Singaporean citizens were able to "speak up".

And that means the 60.14% vote share is a more accurate representation of the support that the PAP has nationwide than any vote share from previous elections. By extension, that is also the national approval level for its policies up to now.

This year, the reasons for the outcome were more clear-cut. The long simmering dissatisfaction with many of the PAP's policies, including the free-flow of foreigners and the rising cost of living highlighted by expensive housing and transport, resulted in voters handing the opposition with a bigger winning margin, not only in vote share, but also with 6 seats in Parliament, the most that the opposition has ever secured since independence.

To be fair, 60% is a respectable win in a multiparty democracy. I'm sure George Bush Junior would like that number very much! But when you consider this together with the narrow winning margins of several high profile ministers – and the loss of three ministers at Aljunied, it is no wonder that the PAP intends to do some serious soul-searching in the short-term.

In my next post, I will share a few thoughts about the narrow winning margins that the PAP obtained in Marine Parade, Tampines and Bishan-Toa Payoh.

--

Singapore General Elections 2011 - debriefing

2011-05-08T22:00:00.000+08:00

On a warm Saturday, 7 May 2011, Singaporeans went to the polls to elect new Members of Parliament. The result of this five-year democratic cycle was that the incumbent, the People's Action Party (PAP), was returned to power with 60.1% of the vote, while also increasing the number of opposition members in the highest legislative body in the nation.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said many times that this was a watershed election because Singaporeans were choosing their leaders of tomorrow. (Aside: isn't any election supposed to be about that anyway?) When he had uttered those words, he had implied that this was a chance for the electorate to give the PAP the mandate needed to continue governing for another five years.

However, this turned out to be a watershed election for other reasons, many of which turned out to be firsts for Singapore.

Almost all of the 87 seats in Parliament were contested, the first time that there was such widespread electoral competition since independence in 1965.
A larger number of younger, first-time voters. Dubbed the post-1975 generation, they made up about one-third of the electorate.
Perhaps reflecting the younger demographic, there were more candidates who were below 30 years old, compared to past elections.
Use of the Internet, in particular, social media saw the increase and ease of communication among voters, which had immediate impact on the ongoing campaigns by the political parties.

And when the results were finally announced:

An opposition party, the Workers' Party (WP), had successfully won a group representation constituency (GRC), a scheme that had been introduced in 1988.
The loss of a key Cabinet minister, George Yeo.
The defeat of Singapore's longest serving opposition Member of Parliament, Chiam See Tong.

I'm sure that there will be a lot of analysis and speculation in the following days from the PAP, mainstream media and armchair bloggers. As an armchair blogger myself, I hope to be able to share my two cents' worth in upcoming posts.

Stay tuned!

--

"An Unofficial Guide to Voting in Singapore"

2011-05-02T15:09:00.003+08:00

On May 7, 2011, Singapore citizens will vote at a landmark general election. Unlike past elections, 82 out of 87 seats are being contested this year, giving almost all eligible voters the chance to vote.

Like many of these voters, I am a first-time voter this year. As such, I thought it important to learn about what to do at their polling stations in order to vote properly.

I prepared this slide presentation to describe the polling station and what goes on in there. I hope that this demystifies the voting procedure in Singapore, and gives everyone the confidence and comfort when they vote on May 7.

Disclaimer: I am a polling agent for the Workers' Party (WP). Some of the information in this guide came from what I had learned at the WP's polling agent briefing.

An Unofficial Guide to Voting in Singapore

View more presentations from Yuhui BC

ST Forum letter: "Children of abused foreign mums deserve proper care"

2011-03-23T23:39:00.000+08:00

Last Saturday's newspapers featured a story about the plight of foreign brides in Singapore who are mistreated by their Singaporean husbands. It also included a small section on how the children of these couples suffer. Moved by that section, I wrote a letter to the Straits Times Forum.

Here's a comparison of what I had emailed to the Straits Times and how it was finally published.

~~Singaporean children of foreign brides~~ Children of abused foreign mums deserve ~~state protection~~ proper care

~~I refer to the article, "Bride and gloom" (ST 19 March 2011).~~ I ~~felt~~ am distressed that ~~such horrific situations still occur in modern Singapore, where women who are strangers in a strange land~~ there are foreign brides who are helpless against their abusive husbands ('Bride and gloom'; last Saturday). (removed paragraph break) ~~But when~~ When I read about the plight of ~~the~~ their children, I felt even more ~~hurt~~ pain. ~~Not only are these~~ These children are not only ~~the~~ innocent victims ~~of predicaments that are out of their control~~, but it also appears that they have been forgotten by the authorities.

We should not forget that these children are Singapore citizens. As such, they deserve all of the rights and privileges accorded to them. This includes providing state protection and welfare from their abusive fathers. These children should be protected like any Singaporean. ~~And to~~ To ensure that ~~the children~~ they continue to enjoy the love and care of their ~~one responsible parent~~ mothers, such protection should also be extended to ~~their foreign mothers~~ these women.

One obstacle is the sponsorship of the foreign mothers' long-term social visit passes. ~~But this should be a trivial matter against the bigger picture.~~ If ~~the~~ delinquent fathers are unwilling to sponsor their spouses' passes, ~~then~~ the immediate next-of-kin should be allowed to ~~sponsor the mothers on behalf of the children~~ do so. ~~This ensures that the bond between mother and child is maintained amidst the family turmoil.~~

~~How many more of of these children need to be street vagrants in foreign lands and suffering from psychological problems before our government brings them back into the safety of their homeland?~~

~~I implore the~~ The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports to should take up the challenge of helping these children. ~~Besides it appears hypocritical that on one hand, the government constantly urges its people to procreate, while on the other hand, it neglects these young citizens.~~

The ST Forum editor's butchering of my letter has left me feeling even more distressed now. He/She appears to be more willing to sacrifice objectivity for maintaining Singapore's squeaky clean reputation publicly. Against the bleak backdrop of the Saturday feature, this move appears hypocritical.

The part that hurt me most was that all mention of the rights and privileges of Singapore citizenship was completely erased from my letter! But that was my whole point! Without that stance, my letter becomes nothing more than something written by a guy with nothing better to do than complain into the wind.

The Straits Times completely lost the plot to appease the government.

Moral of the story:

Singapore citizenship has no place to be mentioned in a newspaper forum.
NEVER mention Singapore in a bad light!
NEVER make a snide remark at government policy!
When suggesting a next step, leave emotion out of the picture and focus purely on intellectual, logical, pragmatic reasons.
Also, when suggesting a next step to the government, use indirect language. (Government of the people? pfft!)

ST Forum letter: "Cashless payment: Pro-active examples IDA should copy"

2010-11-30T23:04:00.000+08:00

Not going to ramble much on this because the issue was never followed up by the relevant authorities. They were probably glad that it was all "hot air".

~~IDA should enforce Cepas compliance, not leave it to the market~~ Cashless payment: Pro-active examples IDA should copy

~~I refer to~~ Last Saturday's reply by the Infocomm Development Authority's (IDA) ~~reply on e-payment adoption~~ (~~Ms Jennifer Toh,~~ "Working towards complete cashless convenience"~~; Saturday~~) on e-payment adoption was puzzling.

(new paragraph) ~~She said~~ The IDA states that card issuers and merchant acquirers require a business agreement to enable terminals to accept all Contactless ePurse Application Standard (Cepas) cards.

(new paragraph) This means that ~~business entities~~ businesses have ~~effectively hijacked~~ been allowed to hijack a ~~customers'~~ customer's choice of which Cepas card to use.

~~I find this response to be bewildering. On one hand,~~ So while the IDA says it wants to promote an e-payment culture~~. On the other~~, it appears to be taking a "hands off" approach in the process. ~~This~~ Such an attitude ~~actually~~ hinders true competition in the e-payment market~~, even though it reeks of government heavy-handedness~~.

When the local telecommunication market was ~~liberalized~~ liberalised, IDA required ~~all~~ telcos to ensure that subscribers ~~from~~ to one telco could contact those from rival telcos seamlessly. It ~~imposes~~ imposed stiff penalties if telcos do did not meet this requirement.

If the telco market had followed what is required for Cepas cross-acceptance, subscribers would need to have their own private agreements to contact family or friends who ~~use~~ subscribe to other telcos!.

Another example of how government intervention ~~leads~~ has led to improved market fairness is the Media Development Authority's (MDA) new stance on set-top boxes.

(new paragraph) MDA will soon require programming from ~~any provider~~ providers to be available on any set-top box. This is regardless of whether the customer has subscribed ~~with~~ to SingTel or Starhub.
(new paragraph) Customers thus benefit from more programming options and lower costs ~~of acquiring set top boxes~~. They are also freed from being subject to their content provider's whims and fancies.

~~I urge~~ IDA to should learn from its telco ~~liberalization~~ liberalisation experience and MDA's set-top box policy in promoting e-payment with Cepas cards.

To that end, I suggest a carrot-and-stick method to ensure a level playing field.

- (new paragraph, removed bullet point) ~~Carrot~~ The carrot: ~~provide~~ Provide subsidies for Cepas equipment makers ~~who~~ that ensure acceptance ~~for~~ of all Cepas cards (~~EZ-Link~~ ez-link, Nets Flashpay~~, etc~~ and so on).

- (new paragraph, removed bullet point) ~~Stick~~ The stick: ~~penalize~~ Penalise card issuers and merchant acquirers ~~who~~ that restrict customers to using Cepas cards from only one issuer.

Why doesn't the President sing the National Anthem?

2010-08-28T16:54:00.000+08:00

About a week after National Day on 9 August 2010, I submitted an enquiry to the Istana's feedback form. I won't elaborate on what it is because it's self-explanatory.

Firstly, please note that this message is not a joke. I'm asking it in all seriousness because it is something that many people have noticed, but no one has the answer to.

I've noticed that at every National Day Parade, during the singing of the National Anthem, the President is shown to be not singing it. This year, the camera was focused on him at the tail-end of the anthem, but his lips were visibly sealed.

With all due respect to His Excellency, I was wondering if there is a protocol that says that the President is exempt from singing the National Anthem.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Yu Hui

After waiting about a week and not receiving any response, not even an automated "thank you", I sent the above to the Straits Times Forum and Today Voices. Till today, I have not seen this enquiry published in either of the mainstream newspapers.

So I'm just posting it here on the hope that someone will chance upon it and know the answer that is on a lot of people's minds:

Why doesn't the President of Singapore sing the National Anthem during National Day parades?

Personal dreams shaped by 45 years of Singapore nationhood

2010-08-09T16:56:00.009+08:00

In half an hour, the National Day Parade will begin with great pomp and circumstance at the Padang. For the next two-and-a-half hours, the nation will be treated to the annual celebration of Singapore's independence. This year is our 45th National Day (i.e. Singapore gained independence from Malaysia in 1965) and the theme is for all Singaporeans to live their dreams.

What were my dreams?

When I was a young boy, my dreams were really quite materialistic. Be rich. Own a thriving business. Be famous. Or, you know, be a politician (which is akin to being a celebrity in Singapore). Looking back, I had perhaps been subconsciously indoctrinated into the whole "5Cs" dream, i.e. to have Cash, Condominium apartment, Credit cards, Car and Country club membership.

What wasn't subconscious was that to attain that dream, I would need to study hard, earn straight A's in my exams and get a degree from a reputable university.

The thing is, by the time I entered university, I had more-or-less realized that being rich and famous wasn't really all it was cracked up to be. Perhaps it was because of where I studied, but I became more idealistic. My dreams were now of intangibles like freedom and personal happiness and gaining knowledge outside of books.

But reality set in and those dreams were brushed aside for more pragmatic demands, like earning a steady income, rising up the corporate ladder, and -- ultimately -- marrying and having children.

The funny thing is that those are exactly what any work-a-day person can hope to achieve if he follows the "study hard, get straight A's" route. Everyday, there are stories of people who've achieved the 5Cs by not following that straight and broad path. Everyone else with a university degree has become an "office monkey".

What's my dream now?

Today, my dreams are more down-to-earth. Save enough to own an apartment and hopefully not a hole in the wall. Grow my nest egg that I'm not a beggar when I'm old and incapable of being productive. And yes, I still want to have my own family with the girl of my dreams.

What other dreams are there?

There is that dream of being my own boss. Which feeds back to my youthful dream of being rich and famous, though I think at the back of my mind, as long as I don't go into bankruptcy, then that should be fine for me.

Or the other dream of being a filmmaker. Yes, I know, that's the path to poverty in Singapore unless you are blessed with a sizable inheritance. I figure that all I really need is to make one film to satiate myself.

One other dream is not really a dream, but a passion to inculcate environmental responsibility in everyone. (This coming from a person who still takes long baths.) Which hopefully leads to the path of becoming a politician, because nothing happens in Singapore unless a person in Government says so.

If I don't achieve my dreams, can I still be happy?

Someone asked me the other day, "Are you happy?" My immediate answer was "yes".

Though my first instinct was to say "No," though not because I am unhappy. I am always reminded of this story that I studied in university. I can't remember the title or the author or the characters, but I know that it's a Greek tale. There was this wise man who was quite rich and famous. So the king asked him if he was happy. He said "no". Later on, at two other different times in the wise man's life, even as life got better for him, he would still say "no" when the king asked him if he was happy.

Exasperated, the king asked him why he was unhappy if he had everything that the gods had granted. To which the wise man said, "I can only know whether I am happy or not after I've completed living my life." By this, he meant that you could not know when is your happiest moment till after you've lived every moment, and then you can look back and identify the happiest one.

My personal reading is that, while happiness is important, it is far better to be content with what life has given me. So my real answer to that person should be "I am content." I can't really complain about my life. As long as there are people worse off than me, even in prosperous Singapore, I feel that I don't have a right to complain.

Dreams are lofty. I am content.

Happy 45th Birthday, Singapore!

SBS Transit online feedback really works well!

2010-06-23T22:54:00.001+08:00

I have new found respect for local public transport company, SBS Transit. And it's because they've shown that online feedback don't go into a corporate blackhole, but are actually responded to and acted upon by real human beings.

On 9 June, when taking SBS 14, I found that I had been incorrectly overcharged. Not just that, I had been overcharged according to the distance-based fares that are only supposed to start in July. (I wonder if any other passengers realised this error too.) As soon as I could, I went to SBS Transit's website and submitted my feedback on the error through their online form.

(By the way, SBS Transit, please fix your form. It really doesn't make sense to split it into two pages.)

That day, I received two emails from SBS Transit. The first was a standard computer-generated acknowledgment email that I immediately consigned to the electronic bin.

But the second email was from Sophia Tan Yen Peng (no title provided). A real human response from SBS Transit. Sophia stated that SBS Transit would be investigating the matter, then gave a cookie-cutter response about how I could submit a request for a fare refund.

After reading Sophia's email, I figured that that was the end of the story for me. Except that it wasn't.

Today, I received another email from SBS Transit, this time by Asrina Binte Asari (Head, Customer Relations). Apparently, there was a technical glitch (which sounds like the equivalent of a doctor telling you that you're sick because of a virus) and SBS Transit has taken measures to resolve it (the doctor prescribes antibiotics).

But the gesture was very much appreciated. It's comforting to see that a big organization takes the time and effort to have someone reply to little ol' me. And the complimentary travel voucher was a nice touch too.

Oh, and I was advised to file my refund five days after the incident. It's been almost two weeks already, and frankly, I thought nothing of the refund after getting Sophia's reply. If you're nice enough to respond to me personally on behalf of your organization, I'm nice enough to forgive your trespass.

The thing that really touches me is that this isn't the first time that I've received an actual human response from SBS Transit or that action has been taken based on my feedback. The first time was when I had complained about a bus which air-con was leaking so badly it was as if it was raining inside the bus. The next day, that bus was nowhere to be seen at the usual time. And when it reappeared, it was as dry as one would expect the interior of a bus to be.

SBS Transit has proved, at least for itself, that online feedback don't disappear into the ether. I hope my experience encourages others to submit their feedback as well. And maybe together, we can make public transport slightly more comfortable for all in Singapore.

--

ST Forum letter: "Make MRT system more user-friendly"

2010-04-23T00:24:00.001+08:00

In anticipation of the opening of the Circle Line to our MRT system and (somewhat) fresh from my trip to Japan, I banged out the following letter and sent it off to the Straits Times Forum. I hadn't really put in much effort to writing it, and felt that its standard was below what the Straits Times would accept.

So it was a pleasant surprise when I saw it in the papers! As I had mused over Twitter, it might have been a slow letter day.

Here's a comparison of what I had emailed to the Straits Times and how it was finally published.

As a modern, world-class subway system, the MRT provides a fast and efficient mode of transport for Singaporeans and visitors. With more Circle Line stations opening in mid-April, this is a good opportunity to take another look at the usability of our MRT system With the increasing sophistication and complexity of the MRT system, it may be timely for the authorities to review its user-friendly aspects to cater to first-time users and our aging the ageing population.

1. Circle Line station numbers: (removed paragraph break) The Circle Line uses yellow as its line colour. However, the station numbers are in white text, similar to what is used in other MRT stations.

(new paragraph) Unfortunately, the white-text-on-yellow does not provide a sufficient contrast. As a result Consequently, it is difficult to make out the Circle Line station numbers from afar. This The problem can be remedied easily solved by outlining the text in black, which would then to make the station numbers stand out.

2. Train colours for all MRT lines: (removed paragraph break) When we only had two MRT lines, it It was easy to distinguish the train lines between the when there were only two, even when making transfers. Adding a third line, the Circle Line, could potentially introduce confusion to confuse visitors. In a few years, we will have a fourth line, the Downtown Line.

(new paragraph) To easily make it easy to identify the trains that serve the various lines train we want, I suggest taking a leaf from what we should copy other subway systems which use a better colour scheme for easy identification.

(new paragraph) There, not Not only do the train lines have unique colours, but the trains themselves are also are coloured similarly.

In our context then Singapore, a North-South train would could be coloured red, an East-West train coloured green, a North-East train coloured purple, and a Circle Line train coloured yellow.

(new paragraph) I realise that this This would clash with the respective train operators' brand colours. However, I think , but it is even more important that our trains are easily identifiable to commuters, which will then make subway MRT travel more convenient and efficient.

I hope that the Land Transport Authority and train operators will seriously consider the above suggestions to improve our outstanding MRT system.

Moral of the story:

Keep it brief, stupid!
Use short paragraphs. Two sentences per paragraph at most. Silly me for forgetting this from my university journalism class!
Even though its public transport, the public doesn't own the buses or trains.
Don't suggest next steps for the government. I guess then that they have to read between the lines to know what to do next.

With regards to that last point, I have a feeling that no action will be taken. My letter was published nearly two weeks ago, and I've yet to see a single response from any agency, be it the Land Transport Authority, SMRT or SBS Transit.

So my joy at seeing my letter in the papers is bittersweet. My effort has probably ended up in some bureaucratic black hole. Ah well. "You can't always get what you want."

--

Thinking about enclaves in Singapore

2010-02-01T00:49:00.000+08:00

There has been a lot of talk lately about enclaves in Singapore. Or rather, the prevention of forming enclaves in Singapore, because it could lead to national integration problems. This followed on a rather intense debate about the importance of declaring one's ethnicity, which the government claimed was to remind Singaporeans of their roots.

(Which begs the question: Aren't we supposed to have set roots in Singapore already? But I digress.)

So let me tell you three stories.

Cooking up an Indian storm
Someone related this tale to me. Back when he was studying in the United Kingdom, he lived in a dormitory that had quite a number of Indians. Every weekend, the dormitory would be filled with the smells of Indian curries, wafting from the freshly cooked dishes in the kitchen. He joked that the smells probably irritated the non-Indians. I don't know if those on the receiving end would have thought it to be a joke.

Easy-to-find Indonesians
Where I was studying my undergraduate degree, I used to take the afternoon bus to get across campus. Every day, that bus would be filled with Indonesians sending them to and from their apartments. And it was always the buses to a particular location that would be filled with Indonesians. Everyone on campus knew that the sizable Indonesian student population lived within a few blocks just outside of campus. And no one batted an eyelid. Like I said, it simply made them easy to locate.

Singaporeans under one roof
In another university city, apparently almost all of the Singaporean students lived in the same apartment blocks. There were a few hundred Singaporeans then out of the thousands of university students there, so it must have been a sight to see all of them congregated in one location (like the Indonesians at my university). If a new Singaporean student entered that university, he would invariably end up living in one of those apartment blocks too. It was just the natural thing to do.

What's the point of the above stories? Besides being anecdotes of enclave-like living overseas, they also highlight something that's very basic about human beings: we find comfort in being around people like us. That's the basis for how societies were formed. People who related with one another lived and interacted together.

The need to be with familiar faces generally becomes stronger when one is overseas. As a stranger in a strange land, being around people like yourself makes the transition of living overseas easier to bear.

Which is why, in Singapore, our foreign nationals prefer living near one another. That shouldn't come as a surprise. It's what we'd do if we were in their situations. It's an organic formation of community.

The dark side of living among your own is that it's easier for you to ignore the rest of that society that you reside in. Putting it simply, if I can speak Mandarin freely with those around me and still be able to work, live and play, then why would I want to learn English to communicate with those who are outside of my circle, except for commercial necessity?

I suppose that's what has the government spooked about enclaves. And it has history to justify its rationale for breaking up these enclaves. Singapore's turbulent past saw one race fighting another. Breaking up these homogeneous communities was the government's way of preventing any more of these outbreaks, by reducing their bases of power.

I don't think our communities of foreigners would start fights with one another today. But if a particular enclave grows to a substantial size, it could become self-sustaining, and Singapore could see Little Japan, Little Russia, or maybe a new Chinatown and Little India.

The government thinks that that is undesirable for a small country like Singapore, which cannot afford the (physical and social) space to support so many homogeneous communities.

But breaking up an enclave is easier said than done. For one thing, there's the practical difficulty of identifying the foreigners, particularly if they rent their apartments and thus leave no property trail to trace.

Also, if enclaves are the organic formation of communities, then the government will need to build new communities artificially, which could lead to resistance from both locals and foreigners. It has already undertaken steps to integrate foreigners more closely into society, though it seems to be implemented more from the foreigners rather than the locals. And it's a long and hard road to build an heterogeneous community.

Ideally, we'd say, "live and let live". Foreigners have their rights to live where they want, subject to practical restrictions like housing availability. If an enclave results from their living together among their kind, so be it. And deal with the problems later.

I guess the question then is: Can Singapore afford to deal with enclave-related problems in the future, if they do arise? I don't have an answer, but I hope a smarter person than me has already worked through the various possibilities.

--

Where's the escalator yellow box?

2009-09-14T23:58:00.001+08:00

As everyone knows, in Singapore, we have signs that teach you how to use basic things. Like how to wash your hands. And how to queue.

And how to use an escalator safely.

Almost all escalators have a safety guide. One of the key things that you're supposed to do is to stand within the yellow box that's marked out on each step. This is to prevent your foot and/or footwear from getting caught at the sides, and for you not to trip over the edge of a step.

Now here's the thing: when you stand on an escalator and look down, here's what you see:

So... where's the safety yellow box?

Logically, you'd paint around the entire border of the steps. It turns out that most escalators just have the box painted on the inside of the steps. As a result, if you're especially rule-abiding and try to stand within a yellow box on the escalator, you'll probably find yourself unable to do so. Which makes you feel unsafe.

Which goes against the whole idea of making escalators safe to use.

--

Save 1-4 cents per bus journey!

2009-04-20T00:19:00.001+08:00

On April 1, the two major public bus transport operators, SBS Transit and SMRT Buses, reduced their trunk service fares by two cents across the board, while also increasing the transfer rebate to 50 cents. This was, of course, greeted to great cheers from the bus-traveling public, especially after years of fare increases -- and corresponding profit increases.

But how would you like to save a few cents more? More specifically, you can save between one and four cents per trip. It's possible and entirely acceptable! This isn't a hoax. I've tested it on several trips since the fare changes came into effect, and have managed to achieve the savings. And you can do it too!

(Aside: Gosh, I sound like a spammer/telemarketer/TV advertiser!)

First, you can get these savings only if your original fare is $1.11 or less. That works out to a distance of about 19 bus stops. (The bus stop that you board the bus counts as one.)

Second, you need to pay for your fares with an EZ-Link card. In that way, you qualify for the 50-cent transfer rebates -- a HUGE factor in getting your extra savings.

Third, you must be willing to transfer buses, because that's how you can get your 50-cent rebates. In addition, you cannot transfer to the same bus service, e.g. don't transfer from service 63 to service 63. If you transfer between the same service, you lose your 50-cent rebate!

With those three points in mind, here's how to get your savings:

1. Save one cent
First bus journey: no more than 69 cents in fare, or about seven bus stops.
Second bus journey: no more than 91 cents in fare, or about 12 bus stops. (You should reach your destination by then.)
Total fare = $0.69 + $0.91 - $0.50 (rebate) = $1.10
Original fare = $1.11
Savings = $1.11 - $1.10 = one cent!

2. Save three cents
First bus journey: no more than 69 cents in fare, or about seven bus stops.
Second bus journey: also no more than 69 cents in fare, or about seven bus stops. (You should reach your destination by then.)
Total fare = $0.69 + $0.69 - $0.50 (rebate) = $0.88
Original fare = $0.91
Savings = $0.91 - $0.88 = three cents!

3. Save four cents
First bus journey: no more than 69 cents in fare, or about seven bus stops.
Second bus journey: also no more than 69 cents in fare, or about seven bus stops.
Third bus journey: again, no more than 69 cents in fare, or about seven bus stops. (You should reach your destination by then.)
Total fare = $0.69 + $0.69 + $0.69 - $0.50 (first rebate) - $0.50 (second rebate) = $1.07
Original fare = $1.11
Savings = $1.11 - $1.07 = four cents!

(There's no method to save two cents. At least, none that I'm aware of!)

Personally speaking, I'm sure that the bus operators had realised before implementing the fare changes that commuters would be able to save the additional few cents with these methods. But I think they also determined that commuters would be too lazy to make so many transfers, so there would be no need to recalculate the base fares.

But now that you know, it's time to stick it to the man! Deny SBS Transit and SMRT Buses your four cents!

--

Obama's Audacity of Hope: the Constitution's role

2008-12-27T23:13:00.006+08:00

Almost any country, even those which political system has been usurped through underhanded means, has a Constitution. It is regarded as the supreme law of the land, the foundation upon which all other laws are developed, the guideline by which the country and society are governed.

One would then most likely regard the Constitution as a static document that cannot be altered once it has been composed. And yet, it is common to hear of countries rewriting or suspending their Constitutions, usually after new leaders come to power. In recent times around Southeast Asia, both Indonesia and Thailand have seen new governments rewrite their respective Constitutions in the name of equality and justice.

The United States, in my understanding of that country's history, also had a dynamic Constitution, particularly after its founding. Following the original document, the founding fathers introduced the Constitutional Amendments, which included the Bill of Rights. Amendments have continued to be introduced, up to as recently as 1992, more than 200 years after the original Constitution was drafted!

With such dynamism even from the champion of democracy, can a Constitution still be regarded as the supreme law of the land? Barack Obama thinks so, but for an entirely different reason. Firstly, he argues that the United States' style of democracy is "not as a house to be built, but as a conversation to be had" (emphasis is mine). With this metaphor, he then regards the Constitution as "a road map by which we marry passion to reason, the ideal of individual freedom to the demands of the community."

In that case, a Constitution would be expected to change as the situation dictates. Using the metaphor of the map, once the road network has changed, the map will need to be updated to reflect those changes, otherwise drivers will be lost. Therefore, as we discard old ideas and embrace new ones, a country's Constitution needs to be revised to match the prevailing sentiment.

Of course, this would understandably raise the ire of government opponents. Amendments could be regarded as being done according to the whims and fancies of the incumbent. Indeed, such accusations were hurled -- and continue to be thrown around every five years or so -- after the Constitution was amended to introduce the Group Representative Constituency and the Elected Presidency. Opponents argued that the rules were being rewritten to favour the ruling People's Action Party at elections.

I take a more cautious approach to such accusations. The Constitution has built-in safeguards to prevent random or rampant amendments, for instance, requiring two-thirds of sitting Members of Parliament to approve the changes at the Second and Third Readings. On the other hand, with the PAP's dominance in Parliament, Constitutional Amendments can pass these safeguards quite smoothly.

What then can the citizen do? Obama, following his meeting with a senior Senator, advises that we should read our Constitution. (The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is available online, so that's one less reason not to read it.) Know it back and forth, upside and down, and in between the lines. Also, appreciate the context and precedents by which it and its amendments were written, to better understand why they were done so in that manner.

By understanding the Constitution, you'll be better able to navigate the political and societal landscape of the nation.

This is the third of what I plan to be an ongoing review of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope". I will try to see if and how his opinions can be applied to Singapore.

Related entries:

Obama's Audacity of Hope: the importance and difficulty of values

2008-12-07T23:41:00.004+08:00

Some time back, there was a resumption of the debate over ministerial pay. Singaporean ministers are some of the best paid government leaders in the world. Much has been said about how our prime minister earns much, much more than the president of the United States. A lot of people simply cannot understand how our leaders can justify that salary scale for themselves.

It's a question of "fair pay for fair work". Everyone understands that concept. If you perform well at a job, you should be compensated with an equitable salary. So it's coincidental (to me, anyway) that this discussion arose just as I was reading a chapter on "values" from the man who would soon be receiving a lower salary than my prime minister.

At the start of the chapter, Obama gave an elaborate introduction that served to point out that he shared many of the same values as President George W. Bush. He explained that no one should be surprised by this. In his work as a Senator, he had discovered that, by and large, the American people shared the same values across the country: freedom of speech, being a productive worker, importance of family, etc.

However, any discussion of values ultimately became a squabble between opposite sides. Conservatives and liberals can't see eye to eye. Politicians debate over details. And the media play along by amplifying the differences.

In Singapore, we have at least been spared the ugly side of the values debate. Instead, the ruling People's Action Party, through its unbroken control of the government since the country's independence, has dictated the values that all Singaporeans should care about. Some of these values have been crystallised as the so-called "shared values".

But really, what do Singaporeans value? If there were any "universal Singaporean values", I think they would contain the following:

educating our youths,
accessible health care,
being a productive member of the labour force,
support for the underprivileged,
freedom to worship,
freedom to play and enjoy life.

(A few might even add "delicious food" and "24-hour shopping"!)

Unfortunately, there will always be differences in how these values are put into practice. Like "fair pay for fair work". Maybe the PAP is right: astronomical salaries that are benchmarked to the private sector ensure that the right people enter government. Or maybe the U.S. system is right; being president of a First World country doesn't mean you have access to unparalleled wealth. The debate could go on and on even though we agree on the same value: "fair pay for fair work".

But Obama observed one thing keenly:

"Values are faithfully applied to the facts before us, while ideology overrides whatever facts call theory into question."

Thus, Obama observed that, in the U.S., though the people, politicians and pundits shared the same values, there was a lack of finding common ground to enable the debate -- and country -- to move forward healthily.

The hard reality is that it can take an excruciatingly long time to find that common ground. There is no easy solution to this predicament, where a solution may be unattainable in the short term. The debate over how much a Singapore minister should be paid has gone on for years and is unlikely to end within my lifetime.

But we must tread carefully to ensure that we don't mistake "ideology" for "value". Values are universal, but ideologies apply only to certain groups. If high pay does indeed lure the altruists and talented into government, who are then able to further improve Singapore, then naysayers cannot keep saying that the salary scale allows the leaders to become wealthier to the country's detriment.

This is the second of what I plan to be an ongoing review of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope". I will try to see if and how his opinions can be applied to Singapore.

Related entries:

Obama's Audacity of Hope: Republicans, Democrats, PAP, ...?

2008-11-26T00:53:00.006+08:00

I honestly didn't know what to expect from Barack Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope". I know that it was inspired from his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, but that was pretty much it. So I'm slowly reading through its nine chapters and reflecting on his viewpoints.

Obama starts off with a discussion on the two main political parties in the United States of America, the Republican and Democratic Party. Instead of a history lesson, he describes how both parties have changed since World War Two into bastions of extreme political thought. Where members of both parties used to debate healthily about issues and policies, today, he thinks that they are more interested in toeing the party line than representing their constituents' needs.

Obama notes optimistically that party politics does not have to end this way. He recognises the necessity of having senior party members who have memories and experience of how political debates were carried out. Through them, he believes that the younger party members can improve themselves and the level of discussion. His main message here is to implore members from both parties not to lose sight of what is most important in a democracy: the needs of the people.

In contrast, Singapore has always experienced one-party rule since independence. It is safe to say that the electorate has no inkling of what multiparty democracy is like. Elections have always been dominated by clean sweeps by the ruling party, the People's Action Party (PAP). Yes, we experience pork-barrel politics here too, but we have no alternative pork to compare against.

On one hand, it is nice to wish wistfully for multiparty democracy in Singapore. On the other hand, I wonder if such a system could function effectively here in the first place, as it has -- somewhat -- in the U.S. It is necessary to think beyond the confines of political niceties and look at the physical and societal realities.

Significantly, there is the issue of land size. Singapore is, admittedly, a small nation. You could travel from east to west in half a day. On the other hand, you would need to fly across the United States to match that duration. Therefore, unlike how there is a political divide between north-and-south and coastal-and-central regions in the U.S., Singapore has a largely homogenous political ground. One would be hard-pressed to find stark ideological differences between a resident in Boon Lay versus one in Pasir Ris or Woodlands.

As a result of this homogeneity, it is generally difficult for multiple political parties to arise to reflect any differences in opinions. In contrast, the Republicans are generally viewed as conservatives who champion "every man for himself", while Democrats take the more socialist, "government should look after the people" path. There is little chance for such differences to arise in Singapore.

Then, there is the issue of history. Singapore, a former British colony, adopted the parliamentary system of its colonial leaders upon independence. There is, however, one thing that differentiates this Westminster style of democracy from the U.S.' system:

The executive branch of government resides entirely within the legislative branch.

This is an extremely important point of differentiation. In the U.S., the executive branch led by the President is responsible for conducting the day-to-day business of running the country. The legislative branch, within the House of Representatives and the Senate, crafts the laws that set the framework for running the country. And never the twain shall meet, or rather, mix!

This separation of power creates another forum for nurturing multiparty democracy. I would argue that a parliamentary system, on the other hand, promotes single-party rule. And why not? By keeping the legislative and executive branches within the same forum, a parliament concentrates power within itself. It is therefore in the interest of the ruling party to stay in power so that it not only controls the legislative, but also the executive. In other words, it not only makes the laws, it also implements them.

Fortunately, history has shown that multiple political parties can still thrive in a parliamentary democracy. The United Kingdom has seen parliamentary control switch between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. A grossly simplified reason for the switches is because one party has lost the confidence of the electorate, whereupon the other party seizes upon the situation to its political advantage.

I suppose that the same situation could occur in Singapore. What is to prevent the PAP from succumbing to its success and hubris from years and years of unimpeded rule? As it is, at every election, there is always the rumble that some constituency will "fall" to the opposition. Indeed, there have been times when this nearly came true, like Cheng San in 1997 and Aljunied in 2006.

But as long as the PAP continues to do a good job at running the country and the electorate continues to believe that the PAP is doing that good a job, then there is no reason for dissent to arise. Then, one-party rule will continue to exist in Singapore, reinforced through homogeneity and parliamentary democracy.

The fear of one-party rule could be similar to what Obama fears in the U.S. -- that political debates will degrade into party members keeping in step with the party and neglecting the people's needs and wants. The PAP must not fall into the trap of achieving success so that it can trumpet its own glory. It must remember that its first responsibility to effective governance is to ensure that it listens to, understands and meets the needs of the people who have put their trust -- and lives -- in its hands.

This is the first of what I plan to be an ongoing review of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope". I will try to see if and how his opinions can be applied to Singapore.

Related entries:

Durian seller explains why only one seller needed

2008-11-22T17:08:00.006+08:00

It had been a while since I'd last eaten some durian, so I headed down to my usual durian seller to get some. As I approached his stall, I found myself walking past stalls that sold a variety of products, like fresh food, stationery, electrical appliances and household items.

My durian seller saw me and called out to me. I was glad that he still remembered me, even though I had not patronised his stall for some time. He wrapped his broad arm around my shoulders and ushered me to a basket full of durians. As he picked at the durians, I enquired about his business. He roared with laughter, saying that business was always getting better.

"I suppose it helps that there are no other durian sellers around here," I noted.

"Why need so many durian sellers?" he asked. "My durians are best! No one else can sell durians as good as mine."

I nodded in agreement. It was true, his durians were always fleshy and sweet. "But still, I think it would be nice to sample other kinds of durians."

Immediately, he froze. Then he rose up, towering over me. For the first time, I realised just how much taller and bigger he was than me. His stern eyes froze me in my spot.

"What do you mean you want to try other durians?!" he demanded.

"Well..." I stammered, "it's just that I might like to, you know, broaden my tastes."

He plucked a durian out of the bunch in his basket and thrust it in my face. "I always give you good durians! I never compromise on my quality. You tell me, you ever taste a more delicious durian?"

The truth was, I'd never tasted any other durian. But I thought it wise not to provoke him further. Cautiously, I took the durian from him.

He grunted with approval. "You listen to me. If you can get the best durians from me, why do you want someone else's durians? If my durians always make you feel happy, why you want to risk feeling depressed with lower quality durians?"

I interjected. "Other durian sellers don't necessarily sell lower quality..."

But he cut me off. "All other durians are bad. You know why? Because only I have the best durians. You don't even need to ask, just take my word for it. I know people in other neighbourhoods got more than one durian seller. In the end, what happen? They become confused. Don't know whether this durian better or that one. They run around in circles. They argue with one another. Who wins? Nobody. Instead, everyone gets more frustrated."

He took another durian and tossed it at me. I caught it just before its thorny hide hit my face.

"You don't need any other durian sellers. You only need me. Understand?"

I nodded, clutching my two precious durians. I paid him for them, then slowly made my way out of his stall. As I walked, the aroma from the durians filled my nostrils. It was truly a sweet, sweet smell that left me intoxicated.

--
More durian tales:

Belated National Day present -- an Olympic medal!

2008-08-16T01:17:00.002+08:00

By now, everyone is gushing about Singapore finally within reach of an Olympic medal, thanks to our female table tennis team. Sure, they are, as some people call them, "China-poreans". But hey, a medal won under the Singapore flag is still a medal nonetheless. Rejoice!

I watched the game with some others and there were, admittedly, some heart-stopping moments. It was certainly disappointing to hear that Singapore would have to fight all the way to the last game, when we were leading the matches 2-0. I think a lot of us thought that the team would be able to win three matches within the first four.

But in the end, all of us were excited that Singapore won! Finally, an Olympic medal is ours again! Some joked that we had won a silver medal. I'd like to remain optimistic. There were some signs of fighting spirits in the players, and I hope that they can soldier on in the big game.

It's been more than 40 years since we last won an Olympic medal, a silver for weightlifting in 1960. On the upside, when anyone talks about the Olympics again, Tan Howe Liang won't be singled out for his achievement.

Go, Team Singapore!

--

"Destroy a landmark to build an MRT station? Why Not?"

2008-07-09T01:30:00.006+08:00

I just couldn't resist taking a dig at the Land Transport Authority's hare-brained decision to destroy the New 7th Storey Hotel. Its rationale is that it needs the space to build the entrances to the new station. And the ground is made of marine clay, so the demolition is necessary to ensure construction safety. Oh, and the hotel is haunted with the ghosts who threaten to spill state secrets. Okay, that last one is a blatant joke.

(In case you have no idea what this ruckus is all about, LTA plans to demolish the 50-plus-year-old New 7th Storey Hotel, so that it can build a station for the upcoming Downtown MRT Line.)

Thank goodness that the Action Community for Entrepreneurship is running its "Why Not?" campaign right now. It encourages Singaporeans to become more entrepreneurial by thinking out of the box.

So LTA, how about it? Why not think outside of your box? With 20 years of underground transport construction experience behind us (MRT, CTE tunnels, KPE tunnels), do we have the technology and expertise to construct an underground station without compromising above-the-surface buildings?

--

A bittersweet Pedra Branca victory for Singapore

2008-05-24T23:55:00.001+08:00

After reading the ICJ's ruling on the Pedra Branca case, I realised just how close Singapore came to losing and how busy the government propaganda machine had been working through our local media.

Because Pedra Branca should belong to Malaysia.

No, it's not that I'm unpatriotic. When I had first learned about the ruling through a Twitter tweet, no less. I was so elated patriotically that I had to tweet all about Singapore's sovereignty over Pedra Branca too.

I've since read the International Court of Justice's 81-page ruling on the Pedra Branca case (313KB PDF) (though I admittedly jumped to the respective Conclusion sections about 20 pages into it), and it's one heckuva roller-coaster ride. The first part basically confirmed that Pedra Branca and its surrounding islets had always been part of the Johor Sultanate and was never terra nullius. (And for history buffs, the Court ruled that, though the Sultanate was split in two, there was an agreement whereby their territories were reunited.)

Here's the damning Section 5.3.5:

117. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that Malaysia has established to the satisfaction of the Court that as of the time when the British started their preparations for the construction of the lighthouse on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh in 1844, this island was under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Johor. (emphasis is mine)

That's why Malaysia won Middle Rocks. The Court had ruled that it was part of the group of islands that included Pedra Branca, and this group had always belonged to Johor (and later, Malaysia).

Singapore won Pedra Branca primarily because of Malaysia's actions (or inaction, as it were), i.e.

In 1953, Johor's Acting State Secretary confirmed point blank that Pedra Branca did not belong to the state.
Malaysia never contested Singapore's management of the lighthouse and other ongoing construction activities.

The Court's ruling, in more layman's terms, is this:
Let's say your neighbour's potted plant sits in your garden. However, he doesn't take care of it and it would have shriveled and died eventually. But you chose to water it, add some fertiliser, spray insect repellent, etc. And when a passer-by asked your neighbour if the plant was his, he said "No!" As a result, you would now be the owner of that potted plant.

And that's how Singapore got Pedra Branca. And that's why I say that Singapore won by a hair. If Malaysia had made more noise over the intervening years, it appears that the Court would have sided with it.

As for South Ledge, it should be clarified that the Court did not explicitly state who owns it. Instead, given its judgment over Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks, it left it to Singapore and Malaysia to work out the territorial boundaries and see which side South Ledge falls on.

Singapore no doubt would want South Ledge. Why? Simple: territory. More specifically, according to the Law of the Sea, a country owns the waters up to 200 nautical miles from its baseline as an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). If Singapore snags South Ledge, then that means our baseline is extended all the way to South Ledge, and then our EEZ is 200 miles out. Who knows what lurks in the waters there? Medicine? Food? Oil??? (The EEZ also explains why Singapore wanted Middle Rocks too.)

One fight is over, won with a bloodied nose. Another fight is looming over South Ledge. That should be another battle to behold.

--