Hougang By Elections Update 2!

"PAP vs WP"

Desmond Choo (L) and Png Eng Huat (R).

 

Workers’ Party nominee has been announced, with little surprise.
Mr Png Eng Huat, a businessman will be WP’s candidate for the By Elections in Hougang.

Little is known about him but he stepped up after the infamous Yaw Shin Leong, former Member of Parliament for Hougang, was sacked by the Workers’ Party for personal indiscretions. While Low of WP initially maintained that those were just rumors, they eventually sacked him because he did not turn up for the meetings to clarify matters.
If someone Low has known for so long could have indiscretions which Low did not know about, what makes anyone think that Mr Png would be more trustworthy or have integrity? I’m not doubting whether Mr Png has integrity or not. I am questioning if Low and his party knows Mr Png well enough?

Yaw Shin Leong’s scandal was the first in Singapore. The first time an Opposition got into Parliament by winning a GRC and the first time a MP was sacked by his party for indiscretions. Till date, Yaw Shin Leong has not stepped up to clarify. Some friends call him a coward. I don’t know better – but I wished he came up to speak, be clear and as the phrase goes “BE A MAN.”

According this Channelnewsasia article, I quote Low’s impression of Png:

“He described Mr Png as mature and the “right candidate” for the by-election.
Mr Low said he has known Mr Png before the 2006 General Election.
He said he observed the way he works for some time and is confident that he’s a person of integrity.
Mr Low said Mr Png is sincere in serving the people. He believes Hougang needs someone like Mr Png, who can connect with its residents.
Mr Low said if elected, Mr Png can contribute to the party’s leadership and parliamentary work.”

IF HE IS SO GOOD, IN THE FIRST PLACE WHY NEVER NOMINATE HIM FOR THE ELECTIONS BUT SENT YAW SHIN LEONG INSTEAD??? I had to CAPS it because I suddenly thought of it!
The answer logically is simple – because Png wasn’t as good as Yaw so WP decided to send Yaw instead!

Well, the truth is we never know everything even if we have spent a long time with them. Sincerity cannot be judged, it is tested and only seen over time. Integrity can only be revealed over time. Also don’t know what parliamentary work is Png going to support.. maybe be like Pritam, take someone’s else work and present it as his without attributing the source at the time of speech. Damn, you can get sacked from your university course for plagarism…. Or be like Gerald who didn’t know about MX9.. Old news but relevant nonetheless.

Well, the same might be said that we don’t know Desmond Choo, PAP’s candidate, for long. But Desmond, at least, he’s been working hard for more than 1 year while the WP MP was sorely Missing In Action (hence no speech link..)

Actually, I want a peaceful by election. One that is honourable and with integrity. For candidates of quality to fight cleanly and maintain peace amongst the people of Singapore. And for Mr Tan-Jee-Say-I-Don’t-Know-Be-MP-or-President-so-I-Just-Join-Both-Elections-And-Ended-Up-Losing-Both to just stop his press releases. It’s getting *quite* annoying every time he opens his mouth.

Psst. I prefer Desmond Choo. Like his Facebook page here.

Advertisements

Political Leaders in SG Rank Better Among Singaporeans

A friend forwarded me this through the email. We don’t know who is the author as it was also a forwarded mail. Nonetheless, if you are the author, please let me know. I will be glad to edit and give credit accordingly. It’s too good not to be shared!

Business, Political and Religious Leaders Around the World Fall Short of Expectations

Political leaders here rank better among Singaporeans, according to Ketchum’s Leadership Communication Monitor

· Over 50% of Singaporeans believe that political leaders are the most effective communicators, compared to business and religious leaders

· 65% of Singaporeans believe that leaders need to be open and honest about the challenges ahead amidst challenging economic times

 

SINGAPORE, March 20, 2012 – Singaporeans feel that political leaders demonstrate the most effective leadership domestically and internationally compared to other types of leaders. This is one of the key local findings of a 12-country survey by global communications firm Ketchum. While the overall study reveals that leaders from business, political and religious life are falling desperately short of expectations around the world – with Europeans and Americans the most disillusioned – Singapore leaders have performed better among their peers.

Amongst Singaporeans, leadership skills that matter include the ability to handle an issue or crisis calmly (68%), to lead by example (66%), to communicate in an open and transparent way (65%), and also be able to articulate a clear long term vision (63%).

They add that the most important action leaders need to take to restore confidence during challenging economic times is to be open and honest about challenges (65%). Over half of Singaporeans (57%) state that effective leadership from business leaders will be very important in terms of navigating the unstable economic future. Most leaders seem to be moving in the right direction, with more than one third of Singaporeans having greater confidence in business (40%) and political leaders (36%) navigating through the economic crisis within their country compared to one year ago.

In terms of industry, 32% feel that the technology industry showed leadership, the highest of any other industry, followed by media (27%) and the banking industry (27%). Consumer goods companies (13%), brewing and spirits (12%) and over-the-counter personal health care product (12%) companies all rank among the lowest in terms of exhibiting leadership.

Effective communications is closely linked to leadership, as eight in ten Singaporeans (80%) stating that effective communication was extremely important to leadership. Singaporeans believe that political leaders (51%), business leaders (47%) and religious leaders (45%) are the most effective communicators, more so than other categories of leaders.

Singaporeans find the most important areas for business leaders to be personally involved in communicating are crisis response (58%) and financial results (58%). When Singaporeans form their views on leaders and leadership, channels that allow for both visual and audio content, such as broadcast media (48%) in-person contact (49%) and televised speeches (47%) are seen as most credible.

Interestingly, residents of Singapore view press releases (57%) as the most credible communication sources when forming opinions about leaders. Online sources such as Twitter (6%), blogs (25%) and other social media platforms (14%) are all much less credible.

Global findings

In other parts of the world, more people believe leadership will actually get worse in 2012 (31%), compared with anticipating better leadership (27%). Perhaps most concerning, the report found a 28-percentage-point gap between expectations of leaders and their delivery against those expectations.

However, the study reveals leadership credibility in 2012 and beyond requires a combination of decisive action and honest, transparent communication – most effectively achieved through a leader’s personal presence and involvement.

“Our study reveals for the first time the full extent of the world’s disappointment with its leaders across every category of human endeavor,” said Rod Cartwright, Director of Ketchum’s Global Corporate Practice. “But the research is also rich with practical insights – a clear blueprint for more effective leadership and leadership communication. What is clear is that effective leadership and effective communication are inextricably linked.”

Perhaps unexpectedly, the Ketchum Leadership Communication Monitor found that business leaders were seen as the most effective over the past year – beating politicians, not-for-profit bosses and even religious leaders. More than a third of respondents said they were more confident in business leaders than a year ago, with 36% viewing business as providing effective leadership (receiving an “excellent” rating of 8 or above on a scale of 0-10) and 48% seeing them as effective communicators.

This compared with just 25% of politicians and religious leaders, who achieved the same “excellent” rating. Although expectations of politicians to provide effective leadership in difficult times were higher than any other group (63%), they suffered the lowest vote of confidence, with 47% expecting worse political leadership in 2012.

Within the business community, knowledge-based industries were perceived as having the most effective bosses. Ranked highest on leadership effectiveness was technology, with a 44% approval rating, followed by media (39%) and telecommunications (36%). Banking chiefs came in fourth overall in the poll worldwide with 32%. The energy sector and financial services leaders were ranked fifth (31%) and sixth (30%) respectively. Consumer business leaders lagged far behind on leadership, with consumer packaged goods placed lowest at 20%.

Perhaps most significant for the business community, the research underlines a direct link between positive perceptions of leadership and business-critical decisions such as a willingness to buy stock, goods and services or recommend working at a company. This explains crisis response being seen as the most important area for business leaders to communicate personally (53%), followed by financial results (48%) and the state of the business (40%).

Personal Leadership and Powerful Communication – A Direct Link

Clear, transparent communication topped the table of key leadership behaviors. For 84%, effective communication is extremely important to strong leadership, while 48% rated it as the number one factor. However, action matters – with tough decision-making, leading by example and calm crisis-handling following immediately behind.

The study also revealed that globally, the number one action leaders should take to restore confidence in 2012 is to be open and honest about the nature and scale of the challenge ahead (57% US; 52% Europe v s. 43% China). By contrast, only 17% indicated a preference for leaders to spare them the full picture to avoid panic.

Trustworthiness was seen as the number one source of leadership credibility for corporations, placed above quality of management and financial strength. In order to win that trust, the report found that the personal “presence” and involvement of a leader in communicating was vital. As a result, communication via face-to-face and traditional media left social media trailing. Face-to-face contact provided the greatest source of leadership credibility (50%), followed by televised speeches (43%), broadcast media (41%) and print media (38%). Digital platforms and social media were well off pace, with blogs at 20%, Facebook at 16%, advertising at 13% and Twitter at just 8%.

Cartwright said: “It is clear that mainstream media still carries a great deal of credibility. When it comes to digital and social media, the message is that most people don’t believe that the leader is actually involved. This doesn’t mean we should conclude that these channels are redundant as a vehicle for establishing credible leadership – quite the contrary. Rather, it underlines the absolute imperative of making the ‘presence’ of the leader shine through.”

KJ – Wrong.. Again

Reform Party secretary-general Kenneth Jeyaretnam (KJ) presented misleading information to Wall Street Journal over the facts about his father Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam. Read it here.

Strange, wouldn’t the son know better? Or was the son misinformed? Or was the son KJ , like many of his other posts, just out to misrepresent and misinform? Now, such a man, we cannot allow to be a politician in Singapore. What if our National Interests get misrepresented at a World Forum?

The Government has been compelled, for national integrity sake, to clear his mess. There are many important matters on the country’s agenda such as ensuring a consistent supply of water. It is clear this incompetent political party secretary-general has placed personal interests above country. Such a man… we must ensure he does not become a political leader in Singapore.

Some people just don’t get it.

The week has barely started when I came to know of a press release made by a Ms Hazel Poa from NSP. Yes, the infamous Nicole Seah Party if you paid attention during the 2011 General Elections.

 

So here we go.. in Bold…

In the last election, Singaporeans have demonstrated a keen desire for a more balanced political landscape, a wider range of views and more robust debates in Parliament.

You mean more confusing debates? Check it out here!

One important ingredient however remains missing for us to achieve the level of scrutiny and debate desired by Singaporeans – the Freedom of Information Act.

It does not take a FOI Act to initiate a discussion. The debate in Parliament is proof that policies are subjected to scrunity and debate.

It is necessary for opposition parties to have equal access to all information pertinent to the formulation of public policies and laws, unless there are overriding reasons for withholding information, for example where national security may be threatened.  Armed with accurate information, different political parties would then be better equipped to scrutinise each other and hold each other to higher standards.  This will ultimately benefit Singaporeans.

It is necessary for all MPs to be clearly informed of the policies and laws, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. WP clearly failed to do their research before they went to the Parliamentary debate. They failed to find out what MX9 was all about. They failed to recognise the relationship between private sector and public sector pay and its subsequent impact on the Ministerial Pay debate.

Gerald Giam from WP assumed that the information was withheld when the information was stated online for goodness sake!

Thank you for explaining the formula for MX9 formula. That is not something that we have privy to, the exact formula for MX9. But..so I’ve no choice but to accept that DPM has proposed, that DPM has revealed in this House regarding what the MX9 is pegged to… we are under the understanding that it was more in line with general wage level..” Gerald Giam during Parliamentary Sitting 18 Jan 2012.

The PAP chided WP for not submitting their proposal to the Review Committee on Ministerial Salaries, seeking to further tilt the unequal balance of information in their favour.  If WP is obliged to open their books, but there is no obligation on the part of the Government to provide WP with relevant information they require, no robust debate will ever be possible in Parliament. If withholding proposals from the Review Committee is considered a political manoeuvre, then the denial of a Freedom of Information Act is a political manoeuvre on a much grander scale.

Fact: At every parliament session, MPs can file Parliamentary Questions that require the Government to explain its position or policies.
Hence, this is not an issue of the govt’s obligation to provide relevant information. It is the OBLIGATION OF WP TO ASK WHAT IT WASN’T CLEAR ABOUT.

WP could have easily submitted a question on MX9 if they wanted to but they did not do so. 

Singapore has made some headway in getting a more diverse representation into Parliament.  However, without equal access to information, debates in Parliament will be stifled.  Accurate and accessible information is crucial to developing a Parliament with thought-provoking debates.

MPs have been voted in by the citizens of Singapore to ASK questions that affect their lives. We, mere ordinary citizens, cannot afford to have MPs or Political Parties who do not know what they are talking about! Crafting an entire WP debate on mere assumptions could cost Singapore our future!

Stop your “thought-provoking” dramas and press releases. It’s more like a headache.

 

 

KXTHXBYE!