Gerald Giam

Complaints Choir "firing cheap political shots"?

Straits Times Forum, 8 Feb 2008

‘Uniquely Singapore’ does not mean embracing all things uncritically

I FULLY support the decision of the Media Development Authority (MDA) not to grant a licence to organisers of the Complaints Choir Project.

This, despite the views of certain netizens that MDA should have allowed the public performance of this choir, since a version of this performance could be made available on the Internet.

Not all kinds of ‘arts and entertainment’ have artistic value. While it is true that an excessively heavy-handed approach towards censorship may stifle creativity and artistic expression, this does not mean that there should be no censorship or licensing at all.

Censorship has a legitimate purpose. We live in a community and we should be mindful of what may undermine the common good.

The Complaints Choir Project puts forward a version of common grouses in our society. Foreigners are involved in this project.

Lau Ai Ling and Lee Siew Peng, writers of the ST forum letters ‘Complaints choir penalised undeservedly’ (ST, Feb 1) and ‘Why squash singing bird amid renaissance drive?’ (ST, Feb 2) respectively, asserted that MDA’s decision undermines Singapore’s initiatives to become a ‘global’ and ‘renaissance and graciousness’ nation.

This reference to the term ‘cosmopolitan’ is a frequently misused and misunderstood refrain. Totally free ‘arts and entertainment’ does not necessarily advance our society’s interests, nor does it reflect an arts renaissance. Not all forms of expression are of value in terms of communication of ideas or even of artistic value.

‘Art’ is not defined exclusively through its ‘shock quality’; whether it is edifying is also a relevant consideration. Freedom of expression in all societies has limits and, to ascertain these limits, we need to examine the specific content of each expression and ascertain its artistic and social value. Firing cheap political shots in the name of ‘art’ or providing entertainment that titillates does not automatically qualify as creative and worthy ‘art’.

It is prudent to draw a line against certain initiatives involving foreigners who seek to impose their opinions and their own version of morality on our society. These foreigners leverage a small select group of disgruntled individuals who masquerade their grouses as views of the average Singaporean. Contrary to their misrepresentation, their values and opinions are not widely held and remain controversial even in their respective countries. We welcome foreign talent and perspectives only to the extent that our society’s interests are advanced.

Clearly, being ‘Uniquely Singapore’ does not mean embracing all things in an uncritical and unthinking fashion. One hopes that Singaporeans as a cosmopolitan people exposed to a wide range of ideas will preserve the discernment to consider what best serves the good of our society where we live and build our lives.

Christine Ang Cheng Moy (Ms)

Well written Ms Christine Ang! Get ready for an invitation to tea by the PAP!

Come on! Who is being uncritical and unthinking? Has Ms Ang even seen the lyrics of the Complaints Choir’s jingle? They are so benign it makes the police ban on it seem ludicrous.

“…this does not mean that there should be no censorship or licensing at all.”

I don’t think netizens are asking for no censorship at all. To make that assumption to counter criticism of the govt’s decision on the Complaints Choir is to cast a hyperbole.

“Firing cheap political shots in the name of ‘art’…does not automatically qualify as creative and worthy ‘art’.”

Spoken like a true minister in the making! But wait…that kind of accusation is supposed to be used only against opposition politicians, not a group of amateur singers which includes even civil servants.

“Totally free ‘arts and entertainment’ does not necessarily advance our society’s interests, nor does it reflect an arts renaissance. Not all forms of expression are of value in terms of communication of ideas or even of artistic value. It is prudent to draw a line against certain initiatives involving foreigners who seek to impose their opinions and their own version of morality on our society.”

I agree that free-for-all arts is not necessarily in Singapore’s interests — but where it concerns public morality, not in the context of the Complaints Choir, which is political expression. Ms Ang is conflating immoral expression with political expression — a common and convenient line of argument used by the governing elite to justify the continued restrictions protecting themselves from criticism.

Censorship is supposed to protect the weakest members of society (e.g., children), not the strongest (e.g., the political elite).

Prime Taxi still the cheapest cab — until end Feb

I’d just like to make a pitch for Prime Taxis for the benefit of all Singapore commuters.

Not many people (including myself until recently) are aware that Prime Taxi is the only cab company in Singapore that has not raised its prices yet. The flag down fare is still $2.50 compared to $2.80 for all the other companies. Their booking number is 67780808 (booking fee is the same as the rest — $3.50).

Here’s a picture of what Prime Taxi cabs look like:

A Prime Taxi driver recently pointed this out to me: According to LTA rules, although cab drivers are not allowed to pick and choose passengers, passengers are allowed to pick which cab they want to ride in. This means that if you are at the front of a taxi queue, you are not obliged to get into the first cab in front of you. You can choose to get into a Prime Taxi even if it is at the back of the taxi queue.

I haven’t verified this with LTA, but it certainly makes sense. What use would competition be if passengers are not allowed to ride in the cab of their choice?

Unfortunately there are only 200 or so Prime Taxis on the roads and their fares are set to increase by end-February. I think this is really unfortunate and I wish they weren’t following suit. It would have provided some real choice for commuters. It’s just a shame that they didn’t publicize enough that they are the cheapest, resulting in most Singaporeans being unaware of the fact.

Perhaps we can blame the media and the Consumer’s Association (CASE) for not alerting us, although I just found out through a web search that CNA actually did run a report on this. Blogosphere should have also done a better job at highlighting this, instead of pouring all our energy into criticizing the decision of the other cab companies to raise fares.

For this I apologize for the oversight on my part.

Countdown to America’s Super Tuesday

The US elections have on occasion been called the most undemocratic in the world. Less than 130 million Americans choose a leader whose decisions will impact 6.5 billion people around the world for four to 8 years. (In the 2004 elections, only 122 million Americans, or 57 per cent of eligible voters, bothered to cast their vote.)

On Tuesday 5 February, Americans in over 20 US states will go to the polls to nominate their party’s candidate for the Presidential election this November. The result of “Super Tuesday” is likely to reveal who the eventual President will be. With support for the Republicans at a low, it is the Democratic Party candidate who stands the best shot at the White House come November.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running neck to neck in the race, with Obama currently trailing just a few percentage points behind the former First Lady, but fast catching up.

As a Singaporean who spent his college years in the US (in Los Angeles) while the Clintons occupied the White House, I am convinced that Obama is the better choice not just for America, but also the world. I see Obama as an inspirational leader who can unite not just America, but also go a long way to bring the world together.

What the world badly needs right now is a United States that can provide not just military leadership, but also moral leadership based on the strength of its ideals of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. These ideals have been badly battered in the last eight years, especially after 9/11, but the world would be worse off without an America that can champion these ideals both in word and deed.

I hope my American friends and readers will begin to fathom the weight of responsibility that rests on your shoulders, and vote on Tuesday for a man who can not only lead America into the future, but also deal with the rest of the world with newfound understanding and respect.

Here’s an editorial from The Los Angeles Times, a major daily in the US, endorsing Barack Obama’s bid for the presidency:

The Los Angeles Times

Editorial

Barack Obama for Democratic nominee

Endorsements for president 2008

February 3, 2008

Democrats preparing to vote in Tuesday’s California primary can mark their ballots with confidence, knowing that either candidate would make a strong nominee and, if elected, a groundbreaking leader and capable president. But just because the ballot features two strong candidates does not mean that it is difficult to choose between them. We urge voters to make the most of this historic moment by choosing the Democrat most focused on steering the nation toward constructive change: We strongly endorse Barack Obama.

The U.S. senator from Illinois distinguishes himself as an inspiring leader who cuts through typical internecine campaign bickering and appeals to Americans long weary of divisive and destructive politics. He electrifies young voters, not because he is young but because he embodies the desire to move to the next chapter of the American story. He brings with him deep knowledge of foreign relations and of this nation’s particular struggles with identity and opportunity. His flair for expression, both in print and on the stump, too easily leads observers to forget that Obama is a man not just of style but of substance. He’s a thoughtful student of the Constitution and an experienced lawmaker in his home state and, for the last three years, in the Senate.

On policy, Obama and his rival Democratic candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, are a hairsbreadth apart. Both vow to pull troops from Iraq. Both are committed to healthcare reform. Both offer candid critiques of the failed George W. Bush presidency, its blustering adventurism, its alienating stance toward other countries and its cavalier disregard for sacred American values such as individual liberty and due process of law.

With two candidates so closely aligned on the issues, we look to their abilities and potential as leaders, and their record of action in service of their stated ideals. Clinton is an accomplished public servant whose election would provide familiarity and, most important, competence in the White House, when for seven years it has been lacking. But experience has value only if it is accompanied by courage and leads to judgment.

Nowhere was that judgment more needed than in 2003, when Congress was called upon to accept or reject the disastrous Iraq invasion. Clinton faced a test and failed, joining the stampede as Congress voted to authorize war. At last week’s debate and in previous such sessions, Clinton blamed Bush for abusing the authority she helped to give him, and she has made much of the fact that Obama was not yet in the Senate and didn’t face the same test. But Obama was in public life, saw the danger of the invasion and the consequences of occupation, and he said so. He was right.

Obama demonstrates as well that he is open-eyed about the terrorist threat posed to the nation, and would not shrink from military action where it is warranted. He does not oppose all wars, he has famously stated, but rather “dumb wars.” He also has the edge in economic policy, less because of particular planks in his platform than because of his understanding that some liberal orthodoxies developed during the last 40 years have been overtaken by history. He offers leadership on education, technology policy and environmental protection unfettered by the positions of previous administrations.

By contrast, Clinton’s return to the White House that she occupied for eight years as first lady would resurrect some of the triumph and argument of that era. Yes, Bill Clinton’s presidency was a period of growth and opportunity, and Democrats are justly nostalgic for it. But it also was a time of withering political fire, as the former president’s recent comments on the campaign trail reminded the nation. Hillary Clinton’s election also would drag into a third decade the post-Reagan political duel between two families, the Bushes and the Clintons. Obama is correct: It is time to turn the page.

An Obama presidency would present, as a distinctly American face, a man of African descent, born in the nation’s youngest state, with a childhood spent partly in Asia, among Muslims. No public relations campaign could do more than Obama’s mere presence in the White House to defuse anti-American passion around the world, nor could any political experience surpass Obama’s life story in preparing a president to understand the American character. His candidacy offers Democrats the best hope of leading America into the future, and gives Californians the opportunity to cast their most exciting and consequential ballot in a generation.

In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long — a sense of aspiration.

Bill Gates calls for "creative capitalism" at WEF

Microsoft chairman Bill Gates delivered a groundbreaking speech at the recent World Economic Forum (WEF) about “creative capitalism”. He argued that corporations have the potential to do great things for the poor, but only if they are given the incentive to do so. Here is his full speech and Q&A with Klaus Schwab, the conference organiser. Excerpts of his speech from his website are highlighted below the video.

Pure capitalism not benefiting everyone

The world is getting better, but it’s not getting better fast enough, and it’s not getting better for everyone.

The great advances in the world have often aggravated the inequities in the world. The least needy see the most improvement, and the most needy see the least—in particular the billion people who live on less than a dollar a day.

There are roughly a billion people in the world who don’t get enough food, who don’t have clean drinking water, who don’t have electricity, the things that we take for granted.
Diseases like malaria that kill over a million people a year get far less attention than drugs to help with baldness.

Climate change will have the biggest effect on people who have done the least to cause it.

Why do people benefit in inverse proportion to their need?

Market incentives make that happen.

In a system of pure capitalism, as people’s wealth rises, the financial incentive to serve them rises. As their wealth falls, the financial incentive to serve them falls—until it becomes zero. We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people serve poorer people as well.

Capitalism harnesses self-interest in helpful and sustainable ways, but only on behalf of those who can pay. Philanthropy and government aid channel our caring for those who can’t pay, but the resources run out before they meet the need. But to provide rapid improvement for the poor we need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way than we do today.

Recognition as an incentive for corporations

At the same time, profits are not always possible when business tries to serve the very poor. In such cases, there needs to be another market-based incentive—and that incentive is recognition. Recognition enhances a company’s reputation and appeals to customers; above all, it attracts good people to the organization. As such, recognition triggers a market-based reward for good behavior. In markets where profits are not possible, recognition is a proxy; where profits are possible, recognition is an added incentive.

Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations wrote, “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.”

Creative capitalism

Creative capitalism takes this interest in the fortunes of others and ties it to our interest in our own fortunes—in ways that help advance both. This hybrid engine of self-interest and concern for others serves a much wider circle of people than can be reached by self-interest or caring alone.

A Dutch company, which holds the rights to a cholera vaccine, retains the rights in the developed world, but shares those rights with manufacturers in developing countries. The result is a cholera vaccine made in Vietnam that costs less than $1 a dose—and that includes delivery and the costs of an immunization campaign. There are a number of industries that can take advantage of this kind of tiered pricing to offer valuable medicine and technology to low-income people.

Role of Governments

The highest-leverage work that government can do is to set policy and disburse funds in ways that create market incentives for business activity that improves the lives of the poor.

Under a law signed by President Bush last year, any drug company that develops a new treatment for a neglected disease like malaria or TB can get priority review from the Food and Drug Administration for another product they’ve made. If you develop a new drug for malaria, your profitable cholesterol-lowering drug could go on the market a year earlier. This priority review could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Connecting the poor with rich word markets

Another approach to creative capitalism is simply to help businesses in the poor world reach markets in the rich world.

A few years ago, I was sitting in a bar here in Davos with Bono. After Asia and most of Europe and Africa had gone to bed, he was on fire, talking about how we could get a percentage of each purchase from civic-minded companies to help change the world. He kept calling people, waking them up, and handing me the phone. His projections were a little enthusiastic at first—but his principle was right. If you give people a chance to associate themselves with a cause they care about—they will pay more, and that premium can make an impact. That was how the RED Campaign was born, here in Davos.

Corporations sharing their brainpower with the poor

I hope corporations will consider dedicating a percentage of your top innovators’ time to issues that could help people left out of the global economy. This kind of contribution is much more powerful than simply giving away cash, or offering your employees time off to volunteer. It is a focused use of what your company does best. It is a great form of creative capitalism, because it takes the brainpower that makes life better for the richest, and dedicates it to improving the lives of everyone else.

When you look on a global basis…at the tough problems of the poorest, a company really should stick to what it knows well. Does it know food, does it know distribution, drugs, media, cell phones? You are developing something that’s lower cost and are true to the identities of that organisation.

On the Gates Foundation’s goals

I’ve set very ambitions goals. Of the 20 diseases that our global health program goes after, for over half of them we could make a very significant impact. Reduction in the mortality rates in developing countries has an effect of reducing population growth, which then makes other things like education and nutrition a lot easier.

I think these are great ideas that we should try to push for in Singapore. There is little doubt that our country is marching forward towards capitalism, with lower income tax, more regressive taxes like the GST and now means testing. We will no longer be able to rely on just the government to foot the social bill. This makes it all the more important for corporations and wealthy individuals (and there are a lot of them in Singapore) to do their part to uplift those in our society who have been left behind by globalisation and economic progress.

Suharto dead

From Reuters/Straits Times:

Indonesia’s Suharto has died: police

JAKARTA – INDONESIA’S former president Suharto, who ruled with an iron fist for 32 years, has died, a senior police official told reporters on Sunday at the hospital where he was being treated.

‘Indonesia’s second president Haji Muhammad Suharto has passed away at about 13.10,’ Major Dicky Sondani told reporters.

Mr Suharto was 86 years old, and had been in critical condition in a Jakarta hospital since Jan 4 suffering from heart, lung and kidney problems. His doctors said he suffered from multiple organ failure and went into a coma on Sunday. — REUTERS

That’s not the way to build confidence in youths

I was disappointed to read about the school principal (of a mission school, no less) telling her Sec 5 students that they might as well apply now for places in ITE because as they were unlikely to do well in the ‘O’ levels at the end of the year. However, I was even more disappointed to read Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew’s reaction to the public uproar about the principal.

In the Straits Times report, Principal’s ‘wake-up call’ to Sec 5 students had to be ‘conveyed’, RAdm Lui was quoted as saying, “Principals need to do their job to convey this message to the students and teachers to do their part to challenge them, set high goals and to help them achieve these goals.”

The principal was clearly in the wrong and it would have been better to just admit it and move on.

What is the point of telling Sec 5 students at the beginning of the school year that basically you all cannot make it and better give up? So what if statistically 40% of them end up not making it to poly, as RAdm Lui said. That shouldn’t stop them from trying their level best in their O levels at the end of the year to overcome the odds.

If they don’t do well enough to qualify for poly, then they can go to ITE after that. No shame in having tried but “failed”. But was the principal expecting them to quit Sec 5 and go straight to ITE?

For RAdm Lui to come in and say that the principal was just challenging her students to “set high goals” is to completely overlook the fact that she had just implied that they should set lower goals for themselves.

I’m all for not mollycoddling our youths. Discipline them when they misbehave. But insulting their intellectual abilities is the wrong way to spur them on to achieve greater heights. That approach to motivation is so ‘yesterday’.

————–

That tearful answer that won Hillary New Hampshire

I don’t think I was the only one who was a little surprised and disappointed to learn that Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, edging out the pre-poll favourite Barack Obama. Many have attributed her win to an answer she gave to an independent voter who asked her how she managed to carry on doing what she did. Here it is:

The results speak for themselves. Women in NH chose her over Obama by almost a 10 percentage point difference. I must say that watching this video leaves me little doubt that Hillary really does love her country and want to lead it forward. But I believe so do the other leading candidates.

Nevertheless this is an important lesson for politicians not to hold back showing their soft side. After all, people vote for a human being, not a policy wonk.

Cabby’s actions now not "illegal". He only "flouted rules"

Last night (this morning actually), I wrote a post commenting about the article, Discount ads on taxis illegal: LTA, which appeared in the late Monday night (7 Jan) edition of the Straits Times. The sub-header was, “Marketing tactics and soliciting are against company rules and the law“. The ST usually publishes a teaser of a breaking story for the next day’s print edition.

In my blog post, I had questioned how the actions of the taxi driver could have been illegal. He had simply placed a handwritten cardboard sign at his windscreen offering to waive the new peak hour surcharge.

Surprise, surprise….In today’s ST, the headline changed. It now reads “Cabby who advertised discounts flouted rules“. The sub-header is now, “LTA backs cab firm and says such tactics may lead to soliciting, which is illegal” (emphasis mine).

There are two possibilities:

Either:

(a) LTA ordered the ST to make those changes after realising that there was no basis for pronouncing the cabby’s actions illegal, or that the taxi driver was conclusively “soliciting”; or

(b) the ST was irresponsible and untruthful in using the word “illegal” twice when LTA never used it, and implying that the cabby was “soliciting”.

No responsible media or government agency should use the word “illegal” lightly. If what the cabby did was really illegal, then that means he had broken the law and the police should have taken action against him to enforce our much vaunted “rule of law”.

The change should have been marked as a correction with apologies, as is the usual practice with credible newspapers.

In any case, there doesn’t appear to be a hint of contrition for the error on either LTA’s or ST’s part. In today’s article, they were still trying to justify why the cabby’s actions could be illegal, because it “may lead to soliciting”.

In Singapore Law, soliciting usually refers to either unauthorised fundraising by charities, selling sex in a public place or unauthorised street collections. Could some legal eagle please explain to me how placing a sign on your own cab window can be deemed “soliciting”? The taxi driver wasn’t asking for donations, prostituting himself (yucks!!!), or busking with a guitar along the street, was he?

The bottom line is that LTA really had no business pronouncing judgment on this minor infringement of a private company’s rules (if at all). It only serves to confirm in many Singaporeans’ minds that the Government is firmly on the side of taxi companies and not consumers or taxi drivers.

Update:

A friend from SPH sent me this clarification:

STI works independently of the newsroom in that the reporter writes for the print version of the paper. STI takes the draft of the story and puts it up online when it is done. It writes the headline and the summary. Because of the demands of instant news that needs to go out, sometimes the copy may not be perfect and the headline written hastily.

If you read the story, it is exactly the same. In the story, there is no mention of LTA saying that the action was illegal. So the “official and correct” headline is the one you spotted after the fact.

You are right about writing a correction. I have no idea what the policy is for online news. If that had been written in the print headline, for sure ST would have to run a correction. But I suppose they have different rules online.

ST is still trying to converge its newsroom with its online site, so mistakes will be made. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying “give them a break”. I think its great that people like you point out the mistakes. Hopefully this will get the attention of the editors and tighten rules around the editorial process.

I have forwarded your blog post to the guy in charge of STI fyi.

Fear not, cab companies…LTA to the rescue!

Discount ads on taxis illegal, says LTA
Marketing tactics and soliciting are against company rules and the law

By Maria Almenoar

A CABBY’S attempts to get more passengers by advertising his discounted rates has been shot down by authorities.

Trans-Cab driver A.L. Tan had placed a handwritten cardboard sign at his windscreen offering to waive the new peak hour surcharge, which is 35 per cent of the metered fare, compared to old rate of a $2 flat fee.

According to cabbies, since the fare increase last month, many passengers are avoiding taking cabs during the peak hours of 7am to 9.30am, and 5pm to 8pm.

Mr Tan’s cab company has warned him that his marketing tactics run against Trans-Cab’s company policy.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) on Monday backed the taxi company.

‘If these drivers advertise, there will be an increased tendency for them to solicit for customers based on lower fares advertised if no commuters board their taxis,’ said the LTA spokesman.

Read the full story in Tuesday’s edition of The Straits Times.

This is simply amazing! On one hand, the Govt says that the taxi market has been liberalized, so taxi companies can set fares as high as they like and the govt won’t interfere. Yet the moment a taxi driver tries to be a bit more entrepreneural, the LTA suddenly swoops in from nowhere to censure the poor man.

The LTA spokesman said, “If these drivers advertise, there will be an increased tendency for them to solicit for customers based on lower fares advertised if no commuters board their taxis.” (Read: If we let one fella do it, EVERYONE will do it and we’ll end up with ridiculously low taxi fares.)

SO?! That’s better for consumers, right? Oh sorry, I forgot the interests of companies come before citizens. After all, companies pay taxes, but most of us lousy plebians hardly pay any income tax. How naive of me.

And pray tell how is something like this illegal? Is LTA going to justify this or are we supposed to take their declaration as the Gospel truth? ST reader grognard, who commented on this article, wrote:

It may be against company policy, but it is hardly illegal.

The Public Transport Council Act (CAP 259B) states:

Bus, taxi and rapid transit system fares
23. —(1) No person shall be entitled to demand and take any bus, taxi or rapid transit system fare in excess of that approved by the Council.
[29/95;29/99]

(2) Subsection (1) shall not prevent any person from demanding or taking a lower fare than that approved by the Council.
[29/99]

Perhaps LTA officials need to ask themselves: Am I a transport company regulator or a transport company advocate?

Joining Young PAP as your stepping stone to Parliament?

The Straits Times ran two reports on Saturday about how Young PAP is expanding its recruitment drive to woo new citizens and overseas Singaporeans. It also featured an interview with the YP chairman, which gave some insights into the dynamics of the organisation.

Young PAP (YP) chairman Vivian Balakrishnan fielded questions about the political aspirations of the young. Some excerpts:

On whether some YP members may feel ‘bypassed” as most candidates in previous elections did not come from their fold.
Dr Balakrishnan: I think the way to phrase the question would be, ‘Will joining the YP mean you’re excluded from consideration as a candidate?” The answer obviously is no. We will not discriminate against someone as a candidate… simply because it doesn’t make sense for us to do so… But whether or not you’re a candidate is not a matter of ambition but a matter of whether the party needs you with your particular set of skills, experience and whether you help build that slate of candidates that the party wants to offer.

On how those who are in the YP just to further their own ambitions will be exposed over time.
To be blunt, and I don’t want to name names… go and look at the last batch of candidates who, in a sense, jumped ship in order to get a shortcut to appearing on the ballot box. Now look at what they are doing, or have they jumped ship again, and you’ll find that there’s a certain behaviour pattern. From where I stand, good luck to them, I’m quite glad we made the right decision in not fielding them and in happily letting them go elsewhere and try their luck.

But what it also means is that I’m prepared to continue to be open and prepared to continue to take that risk, that some of the people who join us may have other agendas and may subsequently even stand against us. To me, it’s a risk worth taking, because if I were to go to the other extreme of being very selective and very tight, I run the risk of missing out opportunities to meet many, many more people.

So it doesn’t matter if there are a few opportunists who come in because in the PAP, time is the real test. And opportunists will not have the patience… the energy to survive the obligations and the duties which membership imposes on the PAP members.

I’m quite amused at the way Dr Vivian (as his YP “comrades” call him) just rephrased the first question to avoid alienating many of his party faithful who will probably never become MPs, despite their noble aspirations.

The second answer was a political snipe directed at a few opposition candidates in the last election who started out in the PAP then switched to opposition parties. However, the Minister skirted over the bigger issue which often dogs YP, which is the perception that there are many opportunists still within the YP ranks.

Those who jumped ship would probably have accepted that their chances of getting elected under the Opposition banner were very slim. It would be unfair to exclude the possibility that some of them genuinely felt that the PAP was not the party they could support, and therefore joined the Opposition. However, the opportunists who didn’t jump ship know that their best chance of getting into Parliament is to get selected as a PAP candidate. Fortunately the PAP leadership is known to be “allergic” to people with political ambitions but little substance.

Looking at the slate of new PAP MPs from the 2006 General Election:

No more than half of them were YP members (I just made some assumptions, based on their resumes).
5 of the new candidates were appointed office holders (i.e., parliamentary secretaries or ministers of state) soon after the elections, but only 1 of them was (possibly) a YP member.
Of the other 4 office holders, all were either senior government officials or top executives in Singapore government linked companies (GLCs).
Of the remaining YP members who remained backbenchers, the vast majority of them are “grassroots MPs”. These are individuals who are deemed to be able to connect well with the ground, mainly because of their proficiency in their mother tongue, and their extensive grassroots experience through Meet-the-People sessions, Citizens Consultative Committees (CCCs) and Community Centre Management Committees (CCMCs).
All the other non-YP candidates have stellar professional careers to boast of.

According to the ST, some 100 people join the YP every month. That’s 1,200 people in a year — quite a sizeable pool of people to pick from. Yet half (possibly more) of the 2006 candidates were recruited from outside the party. This is probably another uniquely Singapore aspect about our government.

For those who aspire to get invited for tea sessions with the PAP, it is worth bearing these points in mind:

Joining the YP might get you noticed, but don’t expect to get picked as a candidate unless you can connect very well with heartlanders. This applies especially if you are Chinese.
If you are really keen on making a difference to government policy by becoming a Minister, you’re better off focusing your talents and energies in building up your credentials in the Civil Service, where Ministers can observe close up how you implement government policies. Being a scholar helps a lot but is not a requirement.
If you don’t join YP but still want to be a backbencher PAP MP, then focus on building your career and becoming a senior manager in a well-known company. The PAP leaders love recruiting people who fit their definition of success. A passion for politics is desirable, but optional.