Digital innovation can come from exam focused education

January 21, 2017

Singapore’s economic troubles, exacerbated by globalisation, automation and China’s aggressive investment in Malaysia have made our political champion scream for an education system that can mould an innovative culture geared towards the digital revolution. Our current education system is deemed to be overly exam focused and to involve little more than memorisation and regurgitation of ten year series exam question answers than critical thinking. This, the champion argues, stymies the futures of the great majority of our people.

The starting point of the argument is the future of our economy – one that thrives on innovation and succeeds in the digital arena. USA, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and perhaps China are the best examples of these champions of digital innovation having produced digital champions like Microsoft, Apple Computers, Google, Samsung, Asustek, Huawei and so on.

Putting aside USA, when we look at South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China and ask ourselves what kind of education systems they have, the answer is invariably the same. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China have education systems that are just as exam focused if not more so. The suicide rates of students in these countries are much higher than ours. The fact that these economies can thrive on digital innovation despite having exam focused education systems seriously challenges the notion that an exam focused education system is preventing us from becoming an innovation driven economy.

So what is the key? From the beginning, South Korea, Taiwan and China were like Singapore. We made all kinds of goods cheaply for the USA and the West. But over time, South Korean, Taiwanese and the Chinese governments worked closely with their local firms and created global conglomerates out of them. This is the critical aspect that has been missing from Singapore.

Today, a top Singaporean engineering graduate from NUS and NTU has no place to go except to work for foreign conglomerates. There is no Singapore Samsung for him or her to plug into to contribute towards the next Singapore Samsung Galaxy.

We had Creative Technologies, Mr Sim Wong Hoo was our poster boy. But Mr Sim turned out to be no Steve Jobs and Creative fell into oblivion. One wonders if things could have turned out differently had Mr Sim had more government support like the chaebols in Korea.

Samsung has demonstrated that success in the digital economy need not come from a man like Steve Jobs who can think out of the box. Success can also come from a workforce moulded by an exam focused education system and supported by a nurturing government.

Commentary on 2016 US presidential election

November 9, 2016

It is a pity that Hillary couldn’t make history by becoming US’ first woman president. The online support I came across for Hillary in the lead up to the US presidential elections had been overwhelming. The attitudes of most Singaporeans towards Hillary and Trump had been as clear as day and night.

Hillary represented pedigree, much like PAP does in Singapore. Trump represented the maverick outcast, a social malign that has similarly dogged Chee Soon Juan. Clearly, Trump would never have been given a chance in Singapore.

There are of course important differences. Dr Chee is learned, gentlemanly, knows his stuff and reasons well whereas Trump doesn’t know what he is talking about or at least that is the impression I am given of him.

But the association is still valid because even though Dr Chee’s public image has greatly improved of late, the maverick impression that the public has of him has more or less stuck through the years.

When the US people became fed up with their government, they changed their government. When the UK people became fed up with the immigration that came with the EU they voted out of EU. I am not sure if Singaporeans are fed up with the government yet refuse to change the government or they are sincerely happy with the way our government is.

While the US presidential election never affected me much, I was silently hoping for a Trump win amidst the deafening cacophony of ringside cheers for Hillary.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t support groping and if it can be proved in court that Trump groped all those women then he deserve to pay the price and Trump’s vice president might end up becoming the president while Trump goes to jail.

But my basic premise is this. It really doesn’t matter who the US president is, US will be great just the same. If Apple’s Iphone batteries are going to explode in the air, they are going to explode regardless if Hillary or Trump is in charge. Microsoft, Google, Facebook will continue to churn out their billion dollar businesses regardless of Hillary or Trump. Amidst the clamor that Trump will run down the US economy, this is a good opportunity to show that he won’t or more appropriately he can’t. The democratic institutions of America which may lead to gridlock and so on will ensure that Trump will not have Mao Tse Tung’s dictatorial powers to run down the country. While The US president is the symbol and focal point of US power and prosperity, he or she is not the basis of US power or prosperity.

If Belgium can operate for about a year without a government, you can be rest assured that in the context of Western societies, good or bad governments doesn’t really matter because the engine that drives their economies doesn’t come from the government.

The Democrats have had two terms, it’s about time power wheeled back to the Republicans so the balance power is always maintained.

Reply to Theodore Shawcross’s “Why do people hate Singapore?”

June 26, 2016

I refer to Theodore Shawcross’s Quora answers to “Why do people hate Singapore?”

1) Freedom of speech and racial harmony

Theodore claimed that giving up freedom of speech is a price that Singaporeans must pay for racial harmony. That is falsehood.

Singapore was already a paradise for multiracial harmony (Chinese, Malay and Indian) long since colonial times. Evidences can be found at

Mixed communities have lived together harmoniously in Singapore for over a hundred years before the PAP government came along. Yet throughout our colonial years of multiracial harmony, there was never the need to trade off our freedom of speech. Colonial era Staits Times was so much freer than it is today. Colonial era Chinese papers spoke for the Chinese educated masses unlike today.

Conclusion: Singapore’s racial harmony is carried forth from colonial times, not forged by the PAP government. There was no need to trade off freedom of speech for racial harmony during colonial times, there is no need now.

2) Hate crime

Theodore claimed that everyone in England has a friend who has a racial conflict story to tell and therefore UK is riddled with hate crime even though he himself has never experienced it.

For someone who claims to be an economist, Theodore’s claim is too unscientific. If every other person that Theodore knows have heard ghost stories, does that mean Theodore would believe in ghosts too?

There are so many conflicts between Caucasians and locals in public places captured on Youtube. Perhaps Theodore should view them and conclude the same about Singapore too?

3) Cost of living

Theodore claims that social spending must increase but that means increasing tax but that is a no, no since Singapore is attractive because of low taxes.

That is like saying nothing at all or nothing useful. Theodore is wrong because the Singapore government can increase spending without increasing taxes because it has billions of dollars of budget surplus to spare almost every year. We are not even talking about dipping into the reserves, just the billions of dollars of budget surplus every year that the government doesn’t use but puts away in the already bloated reserves.

Theordore claims that what keeps our economy strong also keeps our cost of living high so for the sake of our economy, cost of living has to be kept high. He also claims that cost of living in a metropolitan city must necessarily be high and cited New York, London, Tokyo, Sydney for comparison.

According to the Economist Worldwide Cost of Living Survey 2016, all the cities Theodore cited are cheaper than Singapore. There are many other cities listed in the survey that are economically as strong as Singapore but that have much lower in cost of living such as Taipei, Luxembourg, Melbourne, Sydney, Frankfurt, Vancouver, Berlin, Stockholm, Hamburg, Munich and so on.

Conclusion: There are so many cities in this world that are as competitive as Singapore but with much lower cost of living. Hence the notion that a better economy must necessitate higher cost of living is therefore not true. Ultimately, it is human ingenuity that drives the economy, not cost of living. Human ingenuity cannot thrive when cost of living is exorbitant.

4) Western capital cities are filthy and public transport fail all the time

Theodore claims that most capital cities except Tokyo and Sydney are filthy and that their transport systems fail all the time.

Firstly, Sydney is not the capital city of Australia. Canberra is. Secondly, Theodore unfairly limits his comparison to capital cities when all cities can be compared for cleanliness. The fact that Theodore recognizes the cleanliness of Japanese and Australian cities shows that the cleanliness in Singapore is really not so big deal after all. There are so many other clean and beautiful cities like those in Switzerland and Germany, they have to be or they would not attract so many tourists year after year.

It’s plain exaggeration to say that Western public transport fail all the time. Singapore public transport cannot compare to those in Switzerland and Germany. This is despite the fact that Singapore’s public transport infrastructure is so much newer than those in Western cities. Because of lower population densities and the prevalence of car or bicycle use, public transport failure is comparatively less disruptive in Western cities than in Singapore.

5) Affordable public housing and cheap eat outs

Theodore says that our public housing is affordable and that he can eat at a food court in Singapore for SGD $10 whereas he has to pay SGD $50 for a proper meal in London.

In the first place, Singapore public housing, especially those in the open market, can be more expensive than private housing in Western cities. There are many Singaporeans who have sold their flats and bought houses with gardens to live in Western cities. So housing is clearly much more affordable in Western cities instead.

There is a website that tells Theodore where to eat for less than 5 British pounds which is approximately SGD $10. So no excuses for Theodore for not getting cheap meals in London unless his main intent is to unfairly compare a London restaurant with a Singapore food court.

6) Car costs and traffic jams

Theodore reasons that low car costs in Western cities are associated with traffic jams. He cites his own example of having to face the traffic jam on I-80 everyday in his one hour drive from home to Stanford.

But the same can be said about Singapore. Every morning and evening, expressways like PIE will be jammed. I once passed through two gantries along CTE only to end up in a jam just the same.

Conclusion: It is not true that high car costs automatically means little or no traffic jam. We have high car costs plus traffic jams often contributed by incessant road works or pruning of trees.

7) Freedom of expression

Theodore points to calling an Indian or Malay by the colour of their skin as the kind of freedom of speech that we should not want. He thinks that Lee Kuan Yew quit Malaysia to retain racial equality. He says that violence is just one step away from racially or religiously offensive remarks which only the law can protect us against.

While Indians or Malays are not referred to by the colour of their skin, they are called names like apu neh neh which some Indians take offense to (although I have seen a video explanation of why apu neh neh isn’t offensive).

Lee Kuan Yew didn’t quit Malaysia, we were kicked out of Malaysia because Lee Kuan Yew grew too ambitious and wanted to be prime minister of the whole of Malaysia.

Theodore is actually shooting himself in the foot. Going by his argument that the law can protect us against racist or religious offenses, there should therefore be no need for speech control to protect what is already and can only be protected by the law.

8) Singapore housing is affordable

Theodore claims that Singapore is the only country that has kept housing affordable in the capital city relative to suburban areas. He then contradicts himself by saying that Singapore’s suburban area is Malaysia where houses are cheap and affordable. If Malaysian (Singapore suburban) housing is cheap and affordable compared to Singapore, wouldn’t that imply that Singapore housing is expensive and unaffordable compared to Malaysia (Singapore suburban)? Thus, Theodore provides the evidence to prove himself wrong.

Most surveys such as the Global Property Guide rank Singapore amongst the most expensive cities in the world in property prices. So Theodore can only fool himself in saying Singapore housing is affordable.

9) The rest

Theodore blames people’s hate of Singapore on Hollywood. But Singapore is hardly ever mentioned by Hollywood so much so that our mention in Pirates of the Caribbean was already sensational enough for us. Theodore blames Singaporeans for ignorance when his entire essay is chock full of ignorance. Theodore describes young people as pain in the ass who needs to grow up. No Theodore, not all young people are pain in ass. You are not pain in the ass, you are just plain ass.

Theodore claims he is proud to stay and contribute to our economy and to create jobs for Singaporeans. But at the beginning of his essay, he said he moved to Singapore for economic reasons because jobs are here, not to create jobs. In the same token, if for some reasons Singapore falters, you can be rest assured that Theodore will move on to greener pastures for the same selfish economic reasons that he himself has confessed to.

10) Conclusion

Falsehoods, half truths and weak analyses that are sometimes self contradictory are the common themes that run throughout Theodore’s essay. It reflects deep seated ignorance and weak intellectual ability on the author. It brings shame to Stanford and other world class universities Theodore is associated with.

More to Chiams setting the record straight

May 5, 2016

I refer to the 5 May 2016 article “The Chiams Set the Record Straight”.

Chiam See Tong’s supposed setting the record straight is mainly against Dr Wong Wee Nam and Bryan Lim, both peripheral figures not central to the debate between Chiam See Tong and Chee Soon Juan.

If Chiam See Tong really wants to set the record straight, then he must tackle head on SDP’s full, factual and coherent presentation of the events surrounding his departure from SDP available online

To merely poke at peripheral figures who may have added their own personal interpretations to the events surrounding these two central SDP figures without demolishing the central body of evidence presented by the SDP suggests that Chiam is merely grasping at straws.

Chiam’s claim that Chee Soon Juan has the habit of issuing deadlines for offers to both Chiam himself and the WP is something that will require verification from both SDP and WP. As far as WP is concerned, they probably can’t be bothered to add to the dirty laundry being washed in public.

But if that’s true then it probably points to a minor irritating personality issue that may be okay to some but not to others.

What’s most important is that all the allegations that PAP has been making all these years about Dr Chee are nothing but hogwash.

Rebutting Mr Sagar on All Singapore Stuff

May 1, 2016

I refer to the reply by Mr Sagar Gandhi to Mr Shirwin Eu’s wife’s comments.

High election costs isn’t the only way to exclude candidates looking for wealth. Lowering the MP allowance is another way. If the MP allowance is only $3,000 a month which is close to median income, then no one can blame election candidates for going after wealth.

There are so many ways to become famous. Most famous of which is the Famous Amos way. It is far cheaper and more effective too. So it’s hardly convincing for Mr Sagar to say that someone is going after fame by contesting in elections when there are so many other easier and more effective ways to become famous.

It is unfair for Mr Sagar to say that one who is truly worthy and deserving can easily obtain $13,500 a month because it implies that anyone who cannot obtain $13,500 a month is unworthy and undeserving. But $13,500 is way above Singapore median income. Mr Sagar is essentially saying that only the rich in Singapore are worthy and deserving enough to contest in elections. Ordinary folks earning less than $13,500 are unworthy. That is a terrible attitude to have. There are so many worthy individuals who are earning so much less than $13,500. We have a phD blogger who now drives a taxi. Dr Chee is a phD too but is reduced to doing odd jobs here and there.

Mr Sagar cannot compare the networking in Singapore with the networking in America. America is a free country. If there is a giant you want to fight against, there will be another giant who is willing to back you. Here in Singapore, all the networking eventually traces to PAP. If you’re against the PAP, then sadly, the network will be against you, not for you.

Mr Sagar should not blame Uber for high COEs. COEs have been high for many years already whereas Uber is only a recent phenomenon in Singapore. In fact, COEs have come down a bit from the highs a few years ago. Wouldn’t it be the other way around instead? That with Uber’s entrance comes lower COEs? I’m not suggesting anything but it shows how silly it can be to associate COEs with Uber when there are so many other factors to consider.

Instead of eagerly asking Shirwin for solutions, Mr Sagar should pause for a while and ask himself instead, for a relative unknown like Shirwin, even if his solution is gold or platinum standard, would Mr Sagar or the elites governing this country be able to recognise it?

By his statement “Would that not have been a better response than the desire to achieve wealth and fame when requesting to be voted into public office?”, Mr Sagar has already falsely accused Mr Shirwin of seeking wealth and fame. Mr Sagar urges Shirwin to improve his arguments when in fact it is Mr Sagar who should improve his. Mr Sagar should not be so silly as to think that making false accusations is the same as making an argument.

Response to Grace Fu and Halimah

April 30, 2016

I refer to the 30 Apr 2016 Straits Times report “Grace Fu and Halimah point to Murali’s track record and character”.

Ms Fu and Madam Halimah reportedly laid out three criteria for Bukit Batok voters to judge their candidates:

First, what kind of person is the candidate?

Second, what promises has be made?

And third, can he deliver on them?

1) Kind of person

Dr Chee lives in a three room flat. He is the kind of person who well understands through first hand experience, the daily grind of the common folk.

Mr Murali is a successful lawyer. He is the kind of person who better understands what it is like to be successful and to be an elite in this country.

Who will better understand the concerns of the Bukit Batok common folk? Dr Chee who lives their lives or Mr Murali who does not?

2) Promises and delivery

Dr Chee promises to be a full time MP. He is expected to easily fulfill his promise given he doesn’t have a full time job.

Mr Murali who most certainly would be a part time MP promises to deliver as good if not better care to the residents than Dr Chee. Mr Murali is expected to under-deliver as his full time job as a lawyer will always take precedence over his MP duties. He can be expected to tuang many of the parliament sessions as video footages have shown many PAP MPs tuang parliament sessions. But Singaporeans love to pay PAP MPs $16,000 every month to tuang parliament sessions.

Work experience

Grace Fu lambasts Dr Chee for not holding a full time job for a long time and then questions his relevant work experience.

However, between Dr Chee and Mr Murali, Dr Chee’s variety of work experiences is actually richer and more relevant to an MP’s duties as compared to Mr Murali’s. Unlike Mr Murali who can only claim expertise in matters of law in parliament, Dr Chee has given talks to international audiences and written books and papers published by leading newspapers and magazines in a variety of topics including economics, politics, law, democracy and so on.

Moreover, Dr Chee is the leader of the SDP whereas Murali is just an ordinary PAP member. In this respect, Dr Chee is more qualified than Mr Murali.


Grace Fu criticises Dr Chee’s lack of referral from his mentor Mr Chiam See Tong. But Mr Chiam isn’t Dr Chee’s only mentor. Back when Mr Chiam resigned as secretary general of SDP, all the other mentors of SDP backed Dr Chee, not Mr Chiam. So it is not that Dr Chee doesn’t have endorsement from his mentors, he only doesn’t have endorsement from Mr Chiam just as Goh Chok Tong didn’t get Lee Kuan Yew’s endorsement but became the prime minister just the same from the endorsements of most of his other colleagues.

Paddy stalk

Madam Halimah describes Mr Murali as a bowing paddy stalk. Madam Halimah, we don’t need paddy stalk, we can import rice. But we have persistent pigeon problems in many hawker centres. Perhaps Mr Murali can make a good scarecrow instead.

Madam Halimah claims that Mr Murali’s nomination by a Chinese activist shows that his hard work has transcended racial differences. But it can also mean that all the other Chinese PAP activists in Bukit Batok are so hopelessly ji hong that he has no choice but to nominate Mr Murali.

Shout at Goh Chok Tong

Both ladies remind Bukit Batok voters that Dr Chee shouted at Goh Chok Tong 15 years ago. That episode shows a few things. It shows that Dr Chee is totally honest. He bares his all, he doesn’t pretend. It also shows that Dr Chee is passionately concerned with Singapore and will fight and shout for our money if he finds out it had been squandered away.

Town council

Both ladies remind Bukit Batok voters of how long it took (presumably WP) to get the town council in order. But KPMG has recently cleared the air and clearly explained that the key to town council issues were the obstacles placed by the PAP itself. In other words, Grace Fu and Madam Halimah are reminding Singaporeans that PAP will continue to engage in unethical ways to sabotage the new town council team with total disregard to the welfare of Bukit Batok residents. Will Bukit Batok residents be held ransom by PAP?

Online spat between Lee Wei Ling and Janadas

April 7, 2016

In Lee Wei Ling’s original post, she claimed “cynics who complain that Pa restricted freedom of speech, you are wrong”.

Friends, if you think Lee Kuan Yew had indeed restricted freedom of speech, feel free to disagree with Wei Ling and say she is the one who is wrong instead.

Point 1: Sly

Round 1 (Lee Wei Ling): Janadas complained that Cheong was sly

Round 2 (Janadas): He did not complain Cheong was sly, they were Ms Lee’s characterisation, not his

Round 3 (Lee Wei Ling): Janadas was expressing anger that Cheong wasn’t straight with her father, she could not remember exact words

Conclusion: “Sly” indeed was Lee Wei Ling’s characterisation, not Janadas’. Wei Ling could not remember what Janadas actually said.

Point 2: Scolded

Round 1 (Lee Wei Ling): A PAP cadre told her that Lee Hsien Loong (PM Lee) had called Cheong to scold him. Later Cheong told her it was not scold but point out some issues.

Round 2 (Janadas): PM Lee did not call Cheong to scold him, exactly as Cheong had conveyed to her

Round 3 (Lee Wei Ling): While she said scolded at first, she also added that Cheong corrected her saying it wasn’t scold but point out issues

Conclusion: Indeed it wasn’t scold and both had been right. But since it wasn’t scold, Wei Ling should not have mentioned it at all unless her purpose was to implicate the PAP cadre who said it.

Point 3: Foreword versus blurb

Round 1 (Lee Wei Ling): Cheong asked Lee Kuan Yew to write a foreword

Round 2 (Janadas): It was a blurb, not a foreword

Round 3 (Lee Wei Ling): She has the book right in front of her, her dad’s foreword is there ahead of all other forewords

Conclusion: Looking at online posts of the so-called “foreword” by Lee Kuan Yew, it is only four sentences long so it appears more like a blurb than a foreword. Even if Lee Kuan Yew writes only two words like “Good book”, they will come before any other blurb or foreword.

Shame on Sham

March 6, 2016

The following statements are not to be read in part or in whole by anyone connected to the coroner’s inquiry on Benjamin Lim’s case. If you happen to be part of the coroner’s inquiry on Benjamin Lim’s case or are connected to it, kindly refrain from reading further. This is to ensure that the comments made here will not prejudice the coroner’s inquiry in any way.

I refer to Minister Shanmugam’s parliament statements on Benjamin’s case.

The claim that the girl had been traumatised doesn’t square with the opinion that Benjamin would have received no more than a warning and that the specific molest is less serious. As far as the law is concerned, touching the hand can be considered molest too. Even the hair is considered a part of the girl’s body. If indeed the girl had been subjected to traumatic molest, then a mere warning would appear unjust to the girl.

Throughout his statements, Shanmugam gave next to nothing about the young girl so quite clearly, protecting the young girl was never a problem to begin with.

From media reports, it is clear the family desperately sought answers; answers that Shanmugam didn’t give. Shanmugam’s disregard for Benjamin’s family’s pleas for answers is not characteristic of someone who is genuinely respectful. Respect for Benjamin should not have precluded Shanmugam from sharing what he knew with Benjamin’s family privately.

The confrontational nature of Shanmugam’s response doesn’t square with his superficial admission of responsibility. What’s there to be responsible for if the protocols did not contribute to Benjamin’s death? If Shanmugam indeed feels responsible and sees the need for protocols to be re-examined, surely he must at least feel a little apologetic that he hadn’t examined the protocols sooner? But one detects absolutely no remorse in Shanmugam’s answers. It is almost as though he did no wrong and nobody in the government was wrong. I think the 70% vote that PAP secured must have given him tremendous confidence to act this way.

Shanmugam’s concern with politicisation in this case appears one sided only. While he goes to great lengths to condemn politicisation against his own government, he spoke next to nothing about the vicious attacks on the family of Benjamin whom he supposedly respects.

Shanmugam said:

The Rules of Sub Judice generally preclude discussions which may prejudice proceedings but public officials like myself can make statements, if they believe it to be necessary in the public interest, even if there is a hearing pending.

What is Shamugam saying? He, as an official, is above the law? As an official, he is not bound by the law but we peasants are bound by it? What kind of law is this? Peasant’s law?


February 24, 2016

During the last election, Minister Lim Swee Say said heng ah, he was born in Singapore and many Singaporeans agreed with him.

But the truth is, you don’t have to be born in Singapore to be heng in Singapore:

1) Minster Khaw Boon Wan, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor are amongst those who weren’t born in Singapore but who heng heng became Singapore’s political elites.

2) DBS CEO wasn’t born in Singapore but still heng heng became a top banker in Singapore.

3) Hyflux CEO wasn’t born in Singapore but still heng heng became a top entrepreneur in Singapore.

4) Many of our SIA pilots are foreign born but are heng just the same in Singapore.

5) There have been so many generations of bright foreign born students who were heng heng given scholarships to study in Singapore and eventually succeeded in Singapore.

6) We have athletes born in relatively poorer East Europe and dirt poor Africa who heng heng became Singapore’s top footballers.

So if you think you are heng to be born in Singapore, think again. You could have been born anywhere in the world and still be heng in Singapore.

To say otherwise would be to suggest that you are less deserving than your foreign born counterpart and have been given a good life only because you are Singapore born and not because you are actually good.

But we know that is not the case because in Singapore, meritocracy trumps everything else including nationality and origin of birth.

So no, you don’t have to be born in Singapore to be heng in Singapore.

Neutral, good, integrity

February 12, 2016


Some people think that being neutral means if you have 5 bad things to say about PAP, you must also have 5 good things to say about PAP. But that is not what being neutral is all about.

Suppose our subject matter is Yang Ying. You want to say 5 bad things about Yang Ying. Must you also say 5 good things about him too? If you have nothing good to say about Yang Ying, are you guilty of being not neutral? If the judge assigns all the blame to Yang Ying, do you say the judge is not being neutral?

Being neutral doesn’t mean 50-50 regardless of the situation. Being neutral means being fair to each and every individual depending on the unique facts of each situation. If the murderer or rapist deserves no sympathy, he deserves no sympathy. If there’s nothing good to say about PAP, there’s nothing good to say about PAP.


Many of the so-called “good” that people see in PAP are actually not “good” but ordinary or so so only. For example, when Khaw Boon Wan built flats that Mah Bow Tan refused to build, people said Khaw did good. But in the first place, building flats to cater to Singaporeans’ needs was his job. If Khaw was good by simply doing his job, how come our appraisal forms always ask us to list areas where we performed beyond normal call of duty? Shouldn’t we get a good appraisal just by doing our jobs too?

Furthermore, aristocrats should be held accountable to aristocratic standards of good. PAP aristocrats regard themselves as best of the best and benchmark themselves against top of the top professionals. The kind of standard they have set for themselves cannot be the kuching kurak kind of standard. Has PAP measured up to their self-declared aristocratic standard of good?

Not enough flats build flats (after much complaining), not enough buses buy buses, cannot find MRT fault fly in expert from overseas (no one from SMRT, LTA or Ministry of Transport can find the fault). Like that also good, then surely any Tom, Dick or Harry can be good too.

Singaporeans should not let our aristocratic PAP get away with simple, basic goodness. If simple, basic goodness is all that Singaporeans want, why insist on the expensive, aristocratic PAP when any kuching kurak political party will do just fine?

Singaporeans are promised XO char kway tiao only to be served cheap, ordinary char kway tiao. Singaporeans don’t mind but are in fact happy because that’s all they ever wanted. But happy as you are, don’t forget Singaporeans, you have paid for XO char kway tiao, don’t let the hawker get away with serving ordinary char kway tiao.


Singaporeans condone and even think it is alright for PAP to say anything they like during election time and not take them to task. That is not right.

During election 2015, Teo Chee Hian’s No. 1 issue was one page (not even the summary page) from Punggol East accounts. After the election, he suddenly became completely silent on this matter. This sudden change in attitude gives away the lie. Punggol East accounts was never an issue to begin with. Singaporeans should clearly see the true face of Teo Chee Hian and not be taken for a ride.

Singaporeans cannot be so unfair as to grumble so much about the opposition yet turn a blind eye to more fundamental integrity issues with the PAP.