Why I find it hard to support Tony Tan for President.

Much has been made of his dead fish handshake. Sadly, I have been at the wrong end of that dreaded handshake with presidential hopeful Tony Tan, so I can vouch for the veracity of those allegations. For me it had been a significant turn-off.

But a limp and damp handshake is too frivolous a reason for rejecting a presidential candidate.

In 1991 when the elected presidency was introduced, its purpose was to act as a check against a profligate government. The custodial powers of the elected president would include powers to check governmental abuse of power as well as to have custodial powers against governmental raiding of our national reserves. It seems clear that the PAP introduced this scheme not to check itself but to protect against a freak election result which allowed an opposition group to take over government, and therefore be in a position to 'raid' the reserves.

Increasingly though, the people are now coming round to the idea that the national reserves as well as public service appointments are actually assets belonging to the nation and should be managed in a non-partisan way. The elected president should therefore have custodial powers over the reserves and public service appointments, regardless of which political party is in power. Previous President Ong Teng Cheong had tried unsuccessfully to exercise these powers. But the shabby way he was treated as the people's President because he had the audacity to do his job remains deeply etched many people's minds. I have to confess I still harbour deep resentment for his being denied a state funeral when he passed away.

So never again.

Logically therefore, the uber establishment Tony Tan should automatically be disqualified from the job as he is just too deeply enmeshed with the PAP leadership and the GIC management of our national reserves. How can he be the second key for the reserves when he has been such an integral part of the first key? The increasing litany of endorsements from leaders of unions and establishment groups just continue to flag him out as being so ultra-establishment and so pro-status quo that I find it harder and harder to consider his legitimacy for the elected presidency position. In fact I find it increasingly difficult not to see him as a desperate attempt by the government to stem the growing movement towards greater expectation of a higher level of transparency of government and of the management of our reserves.

It does not help also that he has not 'come clean' about the allegations of preferential NS deferment for his son Dr Patrick Tan. From what I have read of the incident and of his early rebuttals, the whole thing seemed somewhat irregular. And if he as a very senior political leader, cannot see that it was irregular and should not have happened, then I am more than concerned. So be it if it was a lapse in judgement. I can accept that. But if it remains unaddressed, it sets an awful precedence for all our subsequent generations of leaders that such 'white horse' decisions are acceptable and defensible. That's not the road I want our country to go down.

I have actually tried very hard to avoid commenting on the presidential election, but I find it very difficult because it continues to grate upon my conscience. I want my President to represent my country and to function correctly as the custodian of the reserves and a guard against a profligate government. And I am not sure Tony Tan is the man for the job. Sadly though, he may still end up getting the job because of the continued silliness of the other candiates in not wanting to coordinate their efforts for Singapore's sake.

Which of the other three candiates would I vote for? I am not telling you. But two of the three appear to be too driven by their egos for my liking.

Hoisted by the presidential petard

The petard was apparently a small bomb that the French used in the 16th century to blow up fortifications etc. The problem is that, like many such munitions, they can behave quite tempermentally and blow up at unexpected moments. Much like the situation of the terrorist who blows himself up accidentally in the comfort of his bomb factory. So one can easily be "hoisted by his own petard". Funnily, a related word to petard is 'peter' or 'petar' meaning 'to break wind', or fart. Seen in the light of this alternative meaning, one conjures up the comical imagery of someone being 'hoisted' by his own fart. For a guy, I suppose, it's like trying to pee against the wind.

Several years ago, the PAP, in a rare pique of insecurity, suddenly recognized that there could actually be a freak election result giving rise to an unintended opposition-led government. Quite an oxymoron here since all election results actually do reflect real decisions of the electorate, and if the opposition wins, it must be the decision of the electorate, and cannot be a freak result. Nevertheless, the PAP then petulantly declared that there should be second key to the national reserves that was to be held by an elected president; effectively the creation of a petard to be used against the opposition, should they be ever so freakish as to be voted into government. It was obviously never ever intended that the petard could be used against the PAP itself since any ruling party could easily engineer into position a pro-ruling party president.

How times have changed. Likewise the wind direction. Now, more than ever before, the possibility is very real that the opposition could swing enough votes to topple the PAP from its throne. Not only that, the sentiment among the electorate is very much in favour of a truly non-partisan elected president, who can actually serve as a check against the PAP itself. Under these conditions, there could be a very significant swing in support against any candidate viewed to be remotely linked to the PAP. In fact the support could likely swing in favour of any candidate who is capable of expressing some anti-PAP rhetoric.

So we see now the presidential petard dangerously being hoisted against the inventor of the petard. Will it actually detonate? We'll see. In any case, it is not a good time to be sitting downwind.

Population issues....

Last year when I did the facile estimates of our population breakdown, it was more for fun than anything else. I did not realize then how important it was going to be.

The 2010 census results confirmed that in 2010 there were a total of 3.23 million Singapore citizens, out of a total population size of about 5.08 million, i.e. roughly for every 3 people walking around the streets of Singapore, only 1 would be a non-citizen. That's really not so bad. But these computations do not make a distinction between local born Singaporeans and immigrants. In my previous estimates, in 2009, there could have been as much as 500,000 immigrant Singaporeans since 2000.

But how many of the 3.23 million citizens can vote? The census is not really clear about how many are above 21 years of age, but a reasonable estimate from their data might be about 75%. So that would give approximately 2.4 million. If we consider the PAP's electoral performance of about 60%, PAP supporters number only about 1.4 million, and have an electoral advantage of only about 500,000.

That's really a remarkable coincidence isn't it? Could it really be that the PAP's electoral advantage is essentially comprised of immigrants? This would not be far from the truth if we accept the argument that immigrants tend to vote conservatively for the ruling party. If that is really true, then the reality is quite horrifying. Has the PAP support among native Singaporeans eroded so substantially - that only 1 in 2 native born Singaporeans support the PAP?

If the above is true, it will only mean that the PAP's hand will only strengthen in time as our population growth for this coming electoral cycle will primarily come from immigration. Unless their popular support among native born Singaporeans continue to erode. Even so, it would be hard to see the erosion of support among native Singaporeans exceed the growth of immigrant support.

I am not at all suggesting that the PAP has adopted a cynical electoral strategy of propping up their flagging support through rapid immigration. But the reality of our population changes do suggest that the opposition cannot keep playing to the fears of native Singaporeans against the growing size of the immigrant population. It will be a losing cause. To survive and succeed they will have to reach out to and represent ALL Singaporeans, native or immigrant.

And what of the native Singaporeans? I am afraid all indications are that we will go the way of the dodo bird. We are a shrinking and disappearing entity. The new orang asli. Just like the peranakans before us who have all but disappeared, and only kept alive by 'acting cute', and support from the tourism industry.

Perhaps Singapore needs a bumiputra policy?

The PAP's new clothes......

Although Hans Christian Anderson popularized the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, the story actually did not originated from him. The story was rather, adapted from a Spanish original in the El Conde Lucanor (1335). Anderson's creative input was apparently to alter the punchline of the story to that of an innocent child blurting out the awesome truth: "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"

I couldn't help thinking of this as I read Mrs Lim Hwee Hua's comments of the recent elections:"We had spent the last five years working hard, trying to understand - in the areas where there are gaps - what the problems were, what the deficiencies were, and to address those," she recalled. "We have also, of course, been trying to engage the residents on some of the current issues."

"It is a surprise for us that the resentment is so deep and the unhappiness is so deep." In fact, it was only during the campaign, that "we began to fully appreciate the extent of the unhappiness and resentment towards the Government, hence the pledge by the PAP team led by Mr George Yeo for us to have a strong role in the transformation of the PAP itself."

One cannot really deny that the PAP MPs do work hard. And they are generally very good at what they do. But for Mrs Lim to admit so candidly they were caught by surprise at the level of resentment and unhappiness on the ground is indicative of how badly they had been betrayed by the people they surrounded themselves with. With their huge machinery and wide range of grassroot organizations, feedback channels, how can they not know?

They are not and will not be the only emperors who get be caught out by the sycophantic crowd. There will always be self-serving sucker-uppers who seek only to further their own fortunes by selectively telling their masters the 'truth' they want to hear.

Perhaps the first step in the transformation of the PAP is to weed out these self serving elements from within.

I am proud of you, Singapore

For the first time in many years, I can say I am proud to be a Singaporean. Not just happy to be a beneficiary of GDP growth, but actually proud to be witnessing this exciting political awakening in Singapore, and this spontaneous outpouring of passion and nationalism around GE2011. True, the nationalism at times sounded somewhat xenophobic, but I don't believe the true emotions behind all that bluster about foreigners truly stems from xenophobism.

Specifically, I am so pleased to see

a] the relatively "clean" campaigns that all the parties have been running. True, the ruling party has had more than a moderate excess of campaign advantages on their side, but I think this has been relatively 'muted' (or not as effective) during these elections. Certainly there has been a minimum of personal attacks launched;

b] the PAP come to terms with the heart behind the cold rationality of their otherwise effective policies. True, this has been more forced upon them by the strong opposition showing than spontaneous development from with the party, but it is better this than not at all. I just hope that this is a true indication of changes within the party logic so that we will see a more wholesome PAP in the future;

c] the ability of the opposition to attract better qualified people into their fold. Particularly surprised and impressed by the ability of the SDP to re-engineer itself away from the self-destructive unnecessarily combative antics of their leader.

d] the emergence of a true-blue Singapore folk hero from the ranks of the opposition parties, such as Mr Chiam See Tong. He has so much love and respect from us all, and he will be so much missed when he finally retires. The sad reality is that he has run out of time, but this should not detract from his immense achievements on behalf of all Singaporeans;

e] the increasing confirmation and acceptability of Mr Low Thia Khiang, also Ms Sylvia Lim as clear definitive opposition voices on behalf of us all. He is another hero in the making, but not yet;

f] the public participation of professionals such as Assoc Professor Tambyah on the opposition platform. There had always been constraints for professionals within gov and quasi-gov institutions to be seen publicly consorting with the opposition, so Assoc Professor Tambyah's very visible participation in opposition politics is a significant milestone and very much welcomed. I truly hope that MoH will not be reactive and start to clip his wings. That would be a a monumental mistake, I think. Certainly the public will watch and pass judgement on such vindictiveness.

g] the emergence of online The Temasek Review and The Online Citizen as alternative voices for the mainstream media. Thank you guys. Please soldier on and do not give up.

h] and most heartwarming of all was the demonstration that the pledge taking can be such a stirring and emotional event as seen at the opposition rallies. Thank you so much to the opposition parties for making use of the pledge in that way (yes, they were making use of it, but thanks anyway). For too long, pledge taking had come across as formal, dead and uninspiring. Almost as if we were being punished.

So it is truly a watershed event, this GE2011. Congratulations Singapore. I am so proud, whatever the outcome.

The General Elections - die die also must say

These are interesting times. As some have already pointed out, this elections will prove to be a watershed one. A milestone. Whatever the outcome and no matter how much MM Lee wants to downplay it, I believe the consequences will be immense and the results will significantly shape the Singapore of tomorrow.

I am not a political commentator and generally have stayed away from directly commenting on political issues. Maybe indirectly shoot some arrows, but generally I have been quite content to just grumble from the sidelines. I am generally not a political person. Afterall am I not a happy-happy beneficiary of the stable gahment that has allowed me to be educated and trained to be able to provide for my family as a medical professional? I am comfortably ensconced in Singapore society. What is there to really complain about? When I am overseas, who do you think I root for, and defend when others criticize developments in Singapore?

So the recent outpouring of apparent wrath against the ruling party in this 2011 elections seems a bit of a mystery to me. Has not the gahment of Singapore, achieved wonders in bringing a resourceless Singapore into developed nation status? We are the envy of many around the world. The little red dot is only little on the map; we punch way above our weight in the world. By any measure, we have a fantastic gahment here in Singapore.

Yet people are unhappy. Why? Minister George Yeo, MP for Aljunied accused the opposition for imposing an emotional burden on the voters, yet paradoxically, here lies the true emotional burden - that the electorate must struggle between supporting an otherwise effective gahment, and the feeling of heaviness and dissatisfaction, that somehow things are not as good as the official statistics tell us.

People feel marginalized and neglected. It is not that Singaporeans are xenophobic or hate foreigners, even though the tone of comments expressed during hustings may suggest it. No, Singaporeans are not xenophobic. It is merely the feeling that their own gahment appears to value foreigners more than its own citizenry. This is probably not true, but the perception is very pervasive. This is where I believe, the gahment has failed. It has failed in managing public perceptions and expectations with respect to immigration, foreign labour and economic growth. It is fantastic that our economy and GDP continue to chug along at a healthy rate, but the perception on the ground is that the benefits appear to accrue mostly to the elites and the wealthy in Singapore. The gahment's reach out to the poor, the weak and the marginalized is often grudging and calculative. Paltry sums considering the size of our budget surpluses and national reserves. Can we do more? Of course we can..... and please don't tell me this is tantamount to raiding our national reserves. MM Lee's comments about the elderly working till 85 was supremely insensitive although I don't think he intended it. Choosing to work till you are 85, is really not the same as being compelled to work to survive until 85.

Being in power, unchallenged power, for such a long period of our history has bred a level of complacency so that leaders do not feel that the public needs to understand or seriously discuss issues. The most expedient way of going where you want to go is unfortunately via a top-down dictatorial approach. This approach has been over-used. Has there been enough planning and discussions?.... Not much apparently.

In the biomedical area, this lack of planning and discussions have wreaked real havoc in the system. Take for example, the hospital clusters. We have over a period of 20 years gone through various levels of clustering, and declustering, and now re-clustering. Each Minister that comes along pushes a hobby-horse position. Hardly evidence of long term planning. Medical manpower planning? Hardly any, apparently - because we have flipped-flopped from too many doctors, to the present situation of being desperately short of doctors. Suddenly we require 3 medical schools..... of 3 different educational systems? This is planning? Almost overnight, the US residency programme was foisted upon all and sundry. If there had been any long term planning, it was far from evident. Medical education is now in a mess. We have an undergraduate and a postgraduate system existing side by side. We have flirted with problem-based learning, then discarded it. We have integrated and disintegrated the curriculum. And we have the really bizarre situation where our medical students are not expected to have studied biology. Duh? And we are expected to believe there is someone somewhere who is responsible for planning all this?

No one discusses this publicly because everything is driven from the top. Very heavily driven.

Foreign talent is critically important for us to push towards excellence. But without appropriate signals that policy makers are concerned about protecting the interests of our home grown and local medical/biomedical professionals, one cannot avoid feeling that the economic pie is not really for local consumption. The mass of biomedical and life science graduates and postgraduates we produce annually find it hard to find jobs in the sectors they have trained for, despite the very rapid expansion of the biomedical sector.

Whatever the results of the elections, there is no doubt they will be important. I don't think the PAP will lose the right to govern. But I think it is vital for the ruling elite to recalibrate its way of doing things... to relearn how to communicate with the people it seeks to lead. If they truly believe they are servants of the people, they must make this evident. And stop being just rulers.

gerrymander, salamander....

I was curious about the word gerrymander....thought it a bit strange and that somehow it had been derived from the salamander. True enough, it was.

According to my trusty reference for all things I would otherwise have been too lazy to go find out, Wikipedia, the word derives from a certain Gov Elbridge Gerry of the USA who, in 1812, redrew the district of Essex in Massachusetts to benefit the Democratic-Republican party in the elections. And as the shape of district was so bizarre, the press mis-characterized the cartoon creature as a salamander. Thus was born the word Gerrymander.

"First printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to the state senate electoral districts drawn by the Massachusetts legislature to favour the Democratic-Republican Party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over the Federalists. The caricature satirises the bizarre shape of a district in Essex County, Massachusetts as a dragon. Federalist newspapers editors and others at the time likened the district shape to a salamander, and the word gerrymander was a blend of that word and Governor Gerry's last name."

Can you spot the salamander here?