The ball's in Ong Ye Kung's court.

A Monday morning dry-rising vent...

The ball is really on Ong Ye Kung's court now. 

Is he going to serve it back with another spin or a tricky drop shot to make us run around again in circles? 

Or will he be letting the ball drop this time and concede the score on this thorny issue: the preferential parking fees treatment for MPs and only elected MPs as compared to the teachers, soldiers, NCMPs, and just about every HDB dwellers in Singapore?

Because, going strictly on the public scoreboard, the last time I checked, it was "one point" for public and online protests led by MP Seah, Andrew Loh and many others (even Bertha Henson) and "zero" for the opposing team led by Grace Fu and Ong; leaving AGO aside as they are busy cleaning every nook and cranny of our little red dot for hidden perks save for one shiny parliamentary spot. 

I know putting it that way seems childish, but my point is about building trust with the people and speaking plainly to them, as Editor-at-Large Han Fook Kwang puts it. 

And such earnest plea is not a call to arouse the smoke screen of populism, but a call to connect with the people at the crossroad where it really counts. 

In other words, it is about connecting at the crucial point where the people's everyday struggle meets the mounting wall of housing and education debts, rising cost of living and high prices. 

As I am writing this, we can expect higher water, transport and electricity prices rising in the shadow of a looming GST hike in the near future. 

As such, there is a lot to contend with as an ordinary citizen living in a First World Nation where our elected civil servant are handsomely rewarded with pay, perks and privileges the common folks can only dream of. 

This is not to say that our MPs don't earn their keeps. We have to give credit where credit is due. Some of them spent their nights and weekends to meet the heartlanders in a bid to bridge the gap.

What's more, who is to say that they can't earn even more in the private sector? They may be rich, living in private estates and enjoying first class treatment in most places they visit. That's fine. 

Honestly, that's how our society is structured. It is the bed we have made, and some level of inequality cannot be avoided for economic and social growth.

Taken in its proper context, we should take the good part about such industry and determination demonstrated, and then aspire to do our best.

For this reason, there is always a level of respect for them for the things they do. I for one am not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. 

But having said that, there is also an expectation from them to tell it as it is, upfront, candid, and with a touch of compassion and understanding. 

The parking issue has become a persisting thorn in the government's side and it shouldn't be so if the right hand of government knows what the left hand is doing. 

When Ong said that "we have to respect our internal system of checks and balances" and that "we cannot pick and choose which finding to address or comply with – we take them all seriously," then he should also take the wide differences in parking charges seriously too.

While MPs pays an annual fee of $365 to park practically everywhere they choose, Singaporeans with car living in HDB estate pays about $800 annual fee to park only at one specific parking location. 

And should that Singaporean be a teacher, then come August this year, they will be paying an additional $900 plus a year. 

So, for about $1700 a year, the teachers pay for parking in schools and at a public carpark near their home. But for $365 a year, MPs gets to park at all public carparks, bar none. 

That's the apparent inconsistency, and taking it seriously means to strip itself of all politicspeak, and say it as it is and not say it to make it even more perplexing. 

First, it was journalist Chua Mui Hoong's inquiry (MP parks for free in Parliament?) and the Clerk of Parliament confirmed it. 

Then, there is the effervescent Grace Fu who jumped in and said that in a way MPs pays for parking by way of an annual permit. However, her statement needed further clarification and this was where MND came in and said it's $365 for any public lot in Singapore. 

And after that came the public outcry on the preferential treatment, which many are asking whether AGO have missed that out? 

For whatever reasons that the MPs get a much cheaper rate, be it their sacrifices for the nation while holding a full job or because they are elected by the people which differs from teachers who are employed and soldiers who are enlisted, just tell it as it is without the vacillation and/or doublespeak.

They may consider coordinating a response with the various agencies, assuring the people with words they can relate to, addressing their concerns directly, and if there is a need for a change, revision, then preempt the sensitive issue by being candid and open with their elected constituency. 

Further, they can tell them the people they are not alone in their struggles, and that their MPs have got their back (by standing back to back). 

Surely, coming out like Flash Gordon and saying what was said below only compounds the issue further:-

"This is about upholding the value of self-discipline. Furthermore, the whole public service subscribes to the discipline of having a clean wage, so every public officer knows that his salary is all he gets – there are no hidden benefits. This is one of our core practices to ensure a clean government.”

I think talks about the value of self discipline only works when it's applicable across the board. It is self-discipline and not restricted to "others-discipline." 

And uncovering hidden benefits applies to everyone regardless race, language, religion and job titles. This would mean that the "whole public service" applies to the "whole" of public service. 

And having clean wages, where "every public officer knows that his salary is all he gets" means that every public citizen also knows that an MP's salary is all he gets. 

Their salaries are no doubt public records for all to see, but if it is about building trust with the people, then communicate them in a way that the people are quietly assured that there is nothing that is left out, especially when the value of self-discipline is one of the core practices to ensure a clean government.

So, yes, we shouldn't "pick and choose which finding to address or comply with – we take them all seriously." If that's the case, then you pick up one end of the clean wage stick, you also bring up the other end of the ministerial stick. 

Alas, an issue that affects a respected body of the teaching profession in Singapore requires more sensitivity, an open dialogue, a touch of compassion and a spirit of candidness where what is sauce for the goose is - as best and as tactfully as possible - also sauce for the gander. 

You don't just mechanically throw the "raw sauce" at one group of people affected and then steam the other sauce to fragrant simmer and serve it piping hot for another elected group, right? 

For the last thing we need is to be taught about "self-discipline", "clean wage", "core practices" and "clean government", and then we end up more confused than ever. Cheerz.