When WP took over a GRC in 2011, there was optimism that they can do a better job with economies of scale. People were already tired of PAP-run town councils that had frills in landscaping and decoration in the estates that ultimately drove up operational and thus conservancy costs. By all accounts from the latest news, WP is no better if not worse in keeping costs down.
A Misstep in Who Foots the Bill
In the latest battle of who can run town councils after better, fairer and cheaper after AIM and FMSS, WP is again under the spotlight as it passed the cost of cleaning the roof and ceiling of hawker centres to the hawkers instead of absorbing them as was in the past practice under the PAP.
NEA, who acted after the WP GRC stallholders complained, said that it was the responsibility of Aljunied-Hougang-Punngol East town council to pick the tab as hawker centres were common area, and not pass the buck to the stallholders.
So soon after the FMSS-AIM saga,WP is again not doing too well in this tit-for-tat on who can run the show better. WP's popular folk image is that it is very grassroot-oriented and not distant from the ground, unlike the PAP who has forgotten its roots, as the coffeeshop talk goes.
From Spotless Hawker Centres to Spotless WP
However, by asking the humble and ubiquitous stallholders to pay for the cleaning of some of the common areas is a departure from the blue-collar worker empathy of the WP. WP is already trying to recover and stated that cleaning of the ceiling and support beams of the hawker centres was not due and there was miscommunication about hawkers footing the bill. Too little too late. This shoulder-shrugging and focus on semantics is typical of the PAP and goes to show the WP might not be as spotless as they made themselves out to be.
Sunday, June 02, 2013
Monday, May 20, 2013
The Town Council Finger Pointing
Town council management, what is really at stake? The debate has not seriously ventured into what town councils should be by the PAP or WP but lingered on who is more improper. If that is the debate, WP has lost more ground than PAP. WP's press statement on Thursday had a table for "discerning members of the public" on the distinction between AIM and FMSS. WP also issued a challenge that a report can be made to CPIB if there was WP wrongdoing in its management of the WP town council. Thus, at stake are WP's corporate governance and WP's reputation, and WP is not scoring in its report book.
WP's Corporate Governance in Question
By boldly comparing itself with PAP's AIM, and "WP has no interest; directors and shareholders are not WP members" in FMSS, WP attempted to canter away on its blue horse waving victoriously into the sunset. What instead happened is that WP implied they gave fat town council business contracts to its supporters either as reward or incentive for giving support to WP. This is tantamount to a tit for tat transaction, which is part of legitimate networking in the business world, however, legal but borderline unethical in town council corporate governance. Particularly damaging for WP's supposedly impeccable integrity if FMSS' subcontractors are also WP supporters or WP members, and there is a pattern of self-serving business lobby and WP patronage.
Hence, there is the danger of town councils being arms and legs of any political party, be it PAP or WP. It is not in the public interests in the long term as what the MND review stressed. WP and its FMSS are solid proof that it is no better than the PAP and its AIM. Turning the tables back on WP, what scorched earth policy has WP built into its FMSS now in the event Aljunied returned to PAP rule? Aljunied GRC residents should be interested to know as they would be the ones affected the most and 2016 is not that long away.
Discerning Members of the Public and WP's Diminished Reputation
WP challenged members of the public and the PAP to make a police report if there is any WP wrongdoing. PAP then challenged that WP should sue if there was any defamation that WP was wronged. In the end, stalemate although WP has more to lose than the PAP in this ongoing debate. WP's reputation of a clean upcoming party with First World Parliament aspirations, its promise to voters that got it Aljunied and Punggol, is seriously being tainted in the eyes of the "discerning members of the public" who are neither sitting with the PAP or WP.
WP's Corporate Governance in Question
By boldly comparing itself with PAP's AIM, and "WP has no interest; directors and shareholders are not WP members" in FMSS, WP attempted to canter away on its blue horse waving victoriously into the sunset. What instead happened is that WP implied they gave fat town council business contracts to its supporters either as reward or incentive for giving support to WP. This is tantamount to a tit for tat transaction, which is part of legitimate networking in the business world, however, legal but borderline unethical in town council corporate governance. Particularly damaging for WP's supposedly impeccable integrity if FMSS' subcontractors are also WP supporters or WP members, and there is a pattern of self-serving business lobby and WP patronage.
Hence, there is the danger of town councils being arms and legs of any political party, be it PAP or WP. It is not in the public interests in the long term as what the MND review stressed. WP and its FMSS are solid proof that it is no better than the PAP and its AIM. Turning the tables back on WP, what scorched earth policy has WP built into its FMSS now in the event Aljunied returned to PAP rule? Aljunied GRC residents should be interested to know as they would be the ones affected the most and 2016 is not that long away.
Discerning Members of the Public and WP's Diminished Reputation
WP challenged members of the public and the PAP to make a police report if there is any WP wrongdoing. PAP then challenged that WP should sue if there was any defamation that WP was wronged. In the end, stalemate although WP has more to lose than the PAP in this ongoing debate. WP's reputation of a clean upcoming party with First World Parliament aspirations, its promise to voters that got it Aljunied and Punggol, is seriously being tainted in the eyes of the "discerning members of the public" who are neither sitting with the PAP or WP.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
People in Town Council Glass Houses: AIM at FMSS
Minister Khaw Boon Wan in parliament hit back at WP, and he did it by bringing up FM Solutions and Services (FMSS). His point was to drive home the idea that town councils are inherently political and WP is no different because FMSS is no more transparent than AIM, and no more apolitical than AIM.
FMSS is WP's Political Embarrassment
FMSS was incorporated in May 2011 by Hougang Town Council staff How Weng Fan and her husband, Danny Loh. How Weng Fan and Danny Loh's history with the WP went back for some time. Both were WP supporters who vouched on nomination day for the WP Ang Mo Kio GRC "suicide team" candidates of Abdul Salim Bin Harun, Gopal Krishnan, Glenda Han, Lee Wai Leng, Melvin Tan and Yaw Shin Leong. Danny Loh and his wife might even be WP members, but it does not matter whether they are or not as they are not apolitical anyway.
Unlike AIM it was not a $2 company, but had a paid up capital of $500,000. The problem with FMSS was that it got the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council contract without tender, and thus might not be the best in the market for the residents of Aljunied-Hougang. AIM was an inconvenient embarrassment when it was found out by WP. But now FMSS is WP's irritating embarrassment when it was dug out by PAP.
An Apolitical Town Council is Possible
Objectively, with AIM and FMSS, two wrongs don't make a right. Town councils are political as AIM and FMSS showed but can they be apolitical, or to what degree they can be apolitical?
The conventional thinking is that town councils are political instruments that cut both ways. If they are good, they win votes. If they are bad and it is so easy to displease voters, they lose votes. That double-edged sword is an inevitable part of politics, unless HDB takes over and resumes its pre-1989 role. Why not, if not HDB then something else existing or new, to make town councils apolitical as best as they can because that is what people want? That idea is not alien as in a democracy, the civil service still runs even if one party comes into power and the other vacates. Why not a town council?
FMSS is WP's Political Embarrassment
FMSS was incorporated in May 2011 by Hougang Town Council staff How Weng Fan and her husband, Danny Loh. How Weng Fan and Danny Loh's history with the WP went back for some time. Both were WP supporters who vouched on nomination day for the WP Ang Mo Kio GRC "suicide team" candidates of Abdul Salim Bin Harun, Gopal Krishnan, Glenda Han, Lee Wai Leng, Melvin Tan and Yaw Shin Leong. Danny Loh and his wife might even be WP members, but it does not matter whether they are or not as they are not apolitical anyway.
Unlike AIM it was not a $2 company, but had a paid up capital of $500,000. The problem with FMSS was that it got the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council contract without tender, and thus might not be the best in the market for the residents of Aljunied-Hougang. AIM was an inconvenient embarrassment when it was found out by WP. But now FMSS is WP's irritating embarrassment when it was dug out by PAP.
An Apolitical Town Council is Possible
Objectively, with AIM and FMSS, two wrongs don't make a right. Town councils are political as AIM and FMSS showed but can they be apolitical, or to what degree they can be apolitical?
The conventional thinking is that town councils are political instruments that cut both ways. If they are good, they win votes. If they are bad and it is so easy to displease voters, they lose votes. That double-edged sword is an inevitable part of politics, unless HDB takes over and resumes its pre-1989 role. Why not, if not HDB then something else existing or new, to make town councils apolitical as best as they can because that is what people want? That idea is not alien as in a democracy, the civil service still runs even if one party comes into power and the other vacates. Why not a town council?
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Quotes and Quotes Out of Context in Politics
Quotes from politicians or celebrities have a life of its own e.g. "I can see Russia from my house" supposedly from Sarah Palin.
The world of politics is about making catch phrases, good soundbites, and to misquote or better, quote out of context what your adversary said. In social media, bad quotes and quotes out of context can get circulated faster and further. As MP Zainudin found out recently after his quote from Terry Goodkind, the same Terry Goodkind behind the story about Confessors, Richard Cypher and epic fantasy.
The quote in full,
The offending quote in particular, "gang rape is after all democracy in action", which was attributed to Zainudin by the time it spread rather than Terry Goodkind, and repeated everywhere without the entire quote from Terry Goodkind.
Taking Out of Context is an Old Trick
Obviously PAP critics took it out of context which is the way politics happen. Certainly, the simple social media crowd who mostly shoot before they think wanted Zainudin's reputation gang raped figuratively. However, for NCMP Lina Chiam to opportunistically weigh in without thinking, looking at her airhead reputation, again shows that she can shoot herself in her foot all by herself. For that matter, only SPP foolishly raised its hand in protest while the other parties like SDP, NSP or WP wisely knew that it was a low blow to strike that would boomerang back.
Nonetheless, Zainudin is not without blame, despite his damage control and reasonable explanation and he is naive to put such thought-provoking quotes out there without some qualifier like "what do you think" to give himself an escape route, which he needed one now. The PAP should have learnt about the social media's angry simple crowd - Tin Pei Ling's infamous photo with her Kate Spade bag should have been an important lesson. Innocuous personally, but can be twisted out of context politically.
The world of politics is about making catch phrases, good soundbites, and to misquote or better, quote out of context what your adversary said. In social media, bad quotes and quotes out of context can get circulated faster and further. As MP Zainudin found out recently after his quote from Terry Goodkind, the same Terry Goodkind behind the story about Confessors, Richard Cypher and epic fantasy.
The quote in full,
The offending quote in particular, "gang rape is after all democracy in action", which was attributed to Zainudin by the time it spread rather than Terry Goodkind, and repeated everywhere without the entire quote from Terry Goodkind.
Taking Out of Context is an Old Trick
Obviously PAP critics took it out of context which is the way politics happen. Certainly, the simple social media crowd who mostly shoot before they think wanted Zainudin's reputation gang raped figuratively. However, for NCMP Lina Chiam to opportunistically weigh in without thinking, looking at her airhead reputation, again shows that she can shoot herself in her foot all by herself. For that matter, only SPP foolishly raised its hand in protest while the other parties like SDP, NSP or WP wisely knew that it was a low blow to strike that would boomerang back.
Nonetheless, Zainudin is not without blame, despite his damage control and reasonable explanation and he is naive to put such thought-provoking quotes out there without some qualifier like "what do you think" to give himself an escape route, which he needed one now. The PAP should have learnt about the social media's angry simple crowd - Tin Pei Ling's infamous photo with her Kate Spade bag should have been an important lesson. Innocuous personally, but can be twisted out of context politically.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Gilbert's May Day Protest
Pop-up protestor Gilbert Goh is planning a sequel protest on May Day to redeem himself and show that he is not a xenophobic activist. His main speakers so far are Tan Jee Say, Vincent Wijeysingha, Leong Sze Hian and Nizam Ismail. M Ravi, F8 and Jolovan Wham also said they wanted to speak in Part Two. This is a motley crew of activists and politicians who are again using using this event to rant on their pet topics. I can imagine what their speeches would be like.
Tan Jee Say: No to 6.9 million! I was a former presidential candidate and was trashed soundly. I was so hard up to be president despite my flop attempt losing out to the other Tans, except that NTUC Tan, that I rented an office at expensive Dhoby Ghaut area to be my shadow Istana, close to the real Istana a few hundred metres away. Even though it made me seem a megalomaniac. Even though it was really expensive that I was almost evicted because I could not afford the District 10 office space when a more humble Aljunied office would do just as nicely. Even though it showed that I could not manage my own finances let alone be the custodian of Singapore's reserves. So remember, No to 6.9 million!
Leong Sze Hian: No to 6.9 million! I am a super financial expert, take a look at my credentials that I must brag about. You know that I have at least 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors and 13 professional certificates right?. It is not that I am insecure and like the PAP I must always remind people about my sakti qualifications. The reason is because I know you people the public only think qualifications is important and I don't want to be like other activists or opposition politicians boh tak chek. You don't believe you ask Jolovan. His PSLE only 212, he himself proudly said so before in ST interview. If I were him I would keep quiet. OK please buy my book at the counter behind you and attend my paid talks next month, No to 6.9 million!
Vincent Wijeysingha: No to 6.9 million! I am openly gay, from SDP, and will take-over that hopeless Dr Chee Soon Juan in SDP who was luckily clever enough to shut up during the last GE. I also almost wanted to run back to England when Dr Chee dared to tell WP that SDP and WP can have a sham alliance for the Punggol BE where WP takes all the shit and we take all the glam. Also, my English is very good but not with a fake ang moh accent like the other Indian in opposition politics, Kenneth the embarrassing son of JBJ. Please vote for me and SDP in 2016. I promise SDP would kick out all the foreigners, including the ones who rented your HDB flat or condo. No to 6.9 million!
Jolovan Wham: No to 6.9 million! I love foreigners and some of you might have heard from rumours, one of the speakers here too. So if I love foreign workers, by being here, that means this event is not anti-foreigner. Recently I helped the SMRT bus drivers who went on strike. The Tiongs, I mean PRC nationals, do not deserve to be treated as second class citizens and should be paid as much as Singaporeans. So SBS and SMRT, please increase their wages and therefore bus and train fares. No to 6.9 million!
Nizam Ismail: No to 6.9 million! You don't know me, but you can Google my name anyway now. No to 6.9 million!
M Ravi: No to 6.9 million! I promise I won't have another mental breakdown now and burst into song and dance like the last time I was at Speakers' Corner, as I took my pills earlier. If I don't take them I might go a little teeny weeny mad like when I shouted in a mosque and a temple on different occasions. I think very few people want me to be their lawyer anymore as I make the case worse for them when I'm their lawyer because of my illness. People, including fellow gays fighting 377A, now rather go to Peter Low! That lawyer is stealing my business! No to 6.9 million!
Teo Soh Lung: No to ISA, ISD, MHA and PAP! Any chance for me to complain about ISD, ISA, MHA and PAP, I take! I support all those detained under ISA by ISD - the communists in the 50-70s, my fellow Marxist Conspiracy comrades from 1987 and all my jihad brothers detained in recent years for terrorism! I only know how to complain about ISD, ISA, MHA and PAP, and spot the PAP spies among you. You, you and you there in the crowd! The one using handphone to take pictures of the crowd. Don't bluff I know it is not for Facebook and you are ISD spy! OK OK Gilbert glaring at me now for digressing, No to 6.9 million!
Tan Jee Say: No to 6.9 million! I was a former presidential candidate and was trashed soundly. I was so hard up to be president despite my flop attempt losing out to the other Tans, except that NTUC Tan, that I rented an office at expensive Dhoby Ghaut area to be my shadow Istana, close to the real Istana a few hundred metres away. Even though it made me seem a megalomaniac. Even though it was really expensive that I was almost evicted because I could not afford the District 10 office space when a more humble Aljunied office would do just as nicely. Even though it showed that I could not manage my own finances let alone be the custodian of Singapore's reserves. So remember, No to 6.9 million!
Leong Sze Hian: No to 6.9 million! I am a super financial expert, take a look at my credentials that I must brag about. You know that I have at least 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors and 13 professional certificates right?. It is not that I am insecure and like the PAP I must always remind people about my sakti qualifications. The reason is because I know you people the public only think qualifications is important and I don't want to be like other activists or opposition politicians boh tak chek. You don't believe you ask Jolovan. His PSLE only 212, he himself proudly said so before in ST interview. If I were him I would keep quiet. OK please buy my book at the counter behind you and attend my paid talks next month, No to 6.9 million!
Vincent Wijeysingha: No to 6.9 million! I am openly gay, from SDP, and will take-over that hopeless Dr Chee Soon Juan in SDP who was luckily clever enough to shut up during the last GE. I also almost wanted to run back to England when Dr Chee dared to tell WP that SDP and WP can have a sham alliance for the Punggol BE where WP takes all the shit and we take all the glam. Also, my English is very good but not with a fake ang moh accent like the other Indian in opposition politics, Kenneth the embarrassing son of JBJ. Please vote for me and SDP in 2016. I promise SDP would kick out all the foreigners, including the ones who rented your HDB flat or condo. No to 6.9 million!
Jolovan Wham: No to 6.9 million! I love foreigners and some of you might have heard from rumours, one of the speakers here too. So if I love foreign workers, by being here, that means this event is not anti-foreigner. Recently I helped the SMRT bus drivers who went on strike. The Tiongs, I mean PRC nationals, do not deserve to be treated as second class citizens and should be paid as much as Singaporeans. So SBS and SMRT, please increase their wages and therefore bus and train fares. No to 6.9 million!
Nizam Ismail: No to 6.9 million! You don't know me, but you can Google my name anyway now. No to 6.9 million!
M Ravi: No to 6.9 million! I promise I won't have another mental breakdown now and burst into song and dance like the last time I was at Speakers' Corner, as I took my pills earlier. If I don't take them I might go a little teeny weeny mad like when I shouted in a mosque and a temple on different occasions. I think very few people want me to be their lawyer anymore as I make the case worse for them when I'm their lawyer because of my illness. People, including fellow gays fighting 377A, now rather go to Peter Low! That lawyer is stealing my business! No to 6.9 million!
Teo Soh Lung: No to ISA, ISD, MHA and PAP! Any chance for me to complain about ISD, ISA, MHA and PAP, I take! I support all those detained under ISA by ISD - the communists in the 50-70s, my fellow Marxist Conspiracy comrades from 1987 and all my jihad brothers detained in recent years for terrorism! I only know how to complain about ISD, ISA, MHA and PAP, and spot the PAP spies among you. You, you and you there in the crowd! The one using handphone to take pictures of the crowd. Don't bluff I know it is not for Facebook and you are ISD spy! OK OK Gilbert glaring at me now for digressing, No to 6.9 million!
Friday, March 08, 2013
Disabled Drivers and Caregivers: Safe from New Car Loan Rules
Despite the rightful rage at the government for introducing the new car MAS loan rules that car buyers must have a cash down payment of 50% or 60% depending on the OMV of the car, and that the max loan tenure is 5 years instead of the current 10 years, there was some reasoned restraint in this new car tax.
Some Thoughtfulness and Exemption
Finance MinisterTharman Shanmugaratnam assured that the new loan rules are a temporary measure and would be reviewed in time to affect demand, and also that disabled drivers and their caregivers would be exempted from this onerous MAS policy to ostensibly restrict the number of cars on the road. The COE policy has obviously failed to deter people from buying cars.
The exemption that disabled drivers and their caregivers should not be penalised is a welcomed caveat to the policy. However, it is the details that matter. Presumably the conditions for the special lifting of the loan rules would be based on whether the car buyer has a Class 1 or Class 2 parking label according to the Centre for Enabled Living. Class 1 is for people who are medically certified as having physical disabilities to park at the disabled drivers lot. Class 2 is for caregivers and those who drive someone who is relatively immobile, and technically it allows for people to park the car at the disabled lot for up to one hour only.
However, there are frequent instances when the Class 2 label is abused e.g. parking beyond the one hour, did not ferry any disabled passenger but yet parked in the disabled lot. Similarly, people would try to work around this MAS loan rules by claiming to be caregivers and getting loan and tax breaks. This is possible as a Class 2 label can be spread up to 3 cars per label i.e. 3 cars exempted from the new loan rules?
So-Called Altruism Questioned
This begs the question. If the government was really generous about disabled drivers and their caregiver-drivers based on allowing them to be spared the new MAS rules, should these groups of people have been exempted from the COE policy at the onset?
Ignoring the technicalities of who is a disabled driver and who is a caregiver-driver and how many cars can be exempted per disabled person, it is obvious these people have a bigger right to own cars more than anyone else. Since the numbers are small, these people need their cars, and as a show of a caring government, all this while, why do disabled drivers surely, and their caregiver-drivers, need to bid and pay for an increasingly exorbitant COE?
Some Thoughtfulness and Exemption
Finance MinisterTharman Shanmugaratnam assured that the new loan rules are a temporary measure and would be reviewed in time to affect demand, and also that disabled drivers and their caregivers would be exempted from this onerous MAS policy to ostensibly restrict the number of cars on the road. The COE policy has obviously failed to deter people from buying cars.
The exemption that disabled drivers and their caregivers should not be penalised is a welcomed caveat to the policy. However, it is the details that matter. Presumably the conditions for the special lifting of the loan rules would be based on whether the car buyer has a Class 1 or Class 2 parking label according to the Centre for Enabled Living. Class 1 is for people who are medically certified as having physical disabilities to park at the disabled drivers lot. Class 2 is for caregivers and those who drive someone who is relatively immobile, and technically it allows for people to park the car at the disabled lot for up to one hour only.
However, there are frequent instances when the Class 2 label is abused e.g. parking beyond the one hour, did not ferry any disabled passenger but yet parked in the disabled lot. Similarly, people would try to work around this MAS loan rules by claiming to be caregivers and getting loan and tax breaks. This is possible as a Class 2 label can be spread up to 3 cars per label i.e. 3 cars exempted from the new loan rules?
So-Called Altruism Questioned
This begs the question. If the government was really generous about disabled drivers and their caregiver-drivers based on allowing them to be spared the new MAS rules, should these groups of people have been exempted from the COE policy at the onset?
Ignoring the technicalities of who is a disabled driver and who is a caregiver-driver and how many cars can be exempted per disabled person, it is obvious these people have a bigger right to own cars more than anyone else. Since the numbers are small, these people need their cars, and as a show of a caring government, all this while, why do disabled drivers surely, and their caregiver-drivers, need to bid and pay for an increasingly exorbitant COE?
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
By George! Media Lobbying, Transparency and NTU's Tenure System
Lobbying is part of the democratic process to advocate a view and to challenge another view. Those with more resources and networks would find it easier to rally each other to support each other in a you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-your-back exchange of favours.
Drumming Up Support for Cherian
When NTU decided not to give Cherian George his tenure in NTU, Cherian's friends and networks got into action. They even produced a petition filled with academic and other luminaries to lobby that their friend deserves job security, as that is what a tenure is in essence. How many of those academics were also striving to get tenure and wanted to use Cherian's case to set a precedent that lobbying and petition for job secuirty works, is a big guess. NTU was however taciturn about why Cherian did not get his tenure citing that it was rightly confidential employer-employee information and were quietly afraid that other academics would rightly learn how to game the outdated tenure system. The lack of transparency on the part of NTU did not help NTU.
There were as a result engineered conspiracy theories from Cherian's friends that Cherian was denied his tenure because he was outspoken in his political views. Is he really that controversially outspoken? If anything and to be indulged in conspiracies, Cherian is in the PAP's books given his employment, wife and wife's background. Naturally Cherian's friends and supporters did not publicly question the former journalist's intellectual rigour as an academic in NTU which prized quantitative and positivist traditions given its engineering research slant. That is not what friends do, but what his former colleague did to set events in context. Courageously even, as nobody wanted to seen as remotely critical of Cherian's situation and going against the tide.
Cherian's Little Elves in Yahoo
Cherian's supporters which includes former students trained and savvy in the use of media, used the media to drum up support for their friend. Yahoo is one of those closely following Cherian's plight and the curious would Google that the Yahoo writers Elizabeth Soh and Shah Salimat were NTU mass comm students and in all likelihood former students and friends of Cherian. Doing their part as writers for the online media giant Yahoo, standing on the chair, "O captain my captain".
Hence, the whole lobby is an extended new media class on what the media can do and should do in lobbying. Cherian's case was reported as a scoop notwithstanding that many academics failed to get their tenure for various personal or office reasons. It helped that Cherian's network was willing and his friends and supporters were in the media to keep support up for Cherian, including a petition and open letter to make NTU open up. In many ways it is like how ST works to play up support for the PAP, this time the table is turned the other way. Control of the media is important in lobbying and engineering support. Ask Gina Rinehart about her Fairfax media ambitions.
Drumming Up Support for Cherian
When NTU decided not to give Cherian George his tenure in NTU, Cherian's friends and networks got into action. They even produced a petition filled with academic and other luminaries to lobby that their friend deserves job security, as that is what a tenure is in essence. How many of those academics were also striving to get tenure and wanted to use Cherian's case to set a precedent that lobbying and petition for job secuirty works, is a big guess. NTU was however taciturn about why Cherian did not get his tenure citing that it was rightly confidential employer-employee information and were quietly afraid that other academics would rightly learn how to game the outdated tenure system. The lack of transparency on the part of NTU did not help NTU.
There were as a result engineered conspiracy theories from Cherian's friends that Cherian was denied his tenure because he was outspoken in his political views. Is he really that controversially outspoken? If anything and to be indulged in conspiracies, Cherian is in the PAP's books given his employment, wife and wife's background. Naturally Cherian's friends and supporters did not publicly question the former journalist's intellectual rigour as an academic in NTU which prized quantitative and positivist traditions given its engineering research slant. That is not what friends do, but what his former colleague did to set events in context. Courageously even, as nobody wanted to seen as remotely critical of Cherian's situation and going against the tide.
Cherian's Little Elves in Yahoo
Cherian's supporters which includes former students trained and savvy in the use of media, used the media to drum up support for their friend. Yahoo is one of those closely following Cherian's plight and the curious would Google that the Yahoo writers Elizabeth Soh and Shah Salimat were NTU mass comm students and in all likelihood former students and friends of Cherian. Doing their part as writers for the online media giant Yahoo, standing on the chair, "O captain my captain".
Elizabeth Soh in Yahoo
Shah Salimat in Yahoo
Hence, the whole lobby is an extended new media class on what the media can do and should do in lobbying. Cherian's case was reported as a scoop notwithstanding that many academics failed to get their tenure for various personal or office reasons. It helped that Cherian's network was willing and his friends and supporters were in the media to keep support up for Cherian, including a petition and open letter to make NTU open up. In many ways it is like how ST works to play up support for the PAP, this time the table is turned the other way. Control of the media is important in lobbying and engineering support. Ask Gina Rinehart about her Fairfax media ambitions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)