4/13/2011

A hungry man versus a well fed man

We are know that a hungry can be a hardworking man, also dangerous when he is really hungry. But given enough motivation and the promise of reward, to feed his hunger pangs, a hungry man can be a dependable worker. Feed him 50% full and he wants more. Feed him 70% full and he will become more efficient and wanting more, but safer. A 70% full man will not want to risk his good fortune. At 80% or 90% full, he starts to get groggy. He thinks well of himself and does not want to take risk anymore. He knows that good times are here and he only needs to keep going without rocking the boat. He is happy and contented. At 100% full, he is not only full in the stomach, he is also full of himself. And he can be very lazy and also very dangerous. He wants everything and wants to protect his everything. Now he does not think of working. He only thinks of protecting his wealth and his good life. And he will do everything to achieve that and anyone trying to cross his path will be in trouble. In my humble opinion, a 70% full man, or maybe a little more, 80% full man, is the best. Anything more is inefficiency and extravagant, wasteful. A 70% full man can be as effective if not more effective than a 80% or 90% full man. Forget about the 100% full man. In politics, I think a 70% majority is better than a 100% majority in parliament. I know who will tell you that 100% is the best. Between these two, there can be many views. I would want a govt that is run by a 70% majority party than a 100% majority. Just an opinion and personal preference from the wisdom of history. The wisdom of the rulers will tell you that this is bullshit. Only 100% and nothing else can do. You want a good and effective govt, you must vote for a 100% majority govt. You better decide what is best for you instead of someone telling you so.

9 comments:

Matilah_Singapura said...

> You better decide what is best for you instead of someone telling you so. <

Sure that is the ideal case when one's intellectual faculties are functional and one's emotions are calm. Otherwise, it is best to weigh up the opinions of notable or 'trusted' others -- they may see something you might have missed.

We all learn because the begining process is 'someone told us something'. The we proceed to find out the truth of the claim -- or for some, they just accept it without a hint of skepticism because they 'feel better'.

Government have to govern by constitution. If they did, the a 51% or 100% majority won't really make any difference.

Unfortunately govts govern by IDEOLOGY -- which means 51% or 100%, the people who didn't vote for them are screwed.

The reality is that govts, especially S'pore govt governs by IDEOLOGY. The 'strategy' for an individual who wishes to 'win more' and 'lose less' is to seek ways in which he can exploit the parts which accrue 'benefits' in govt ideology, and protect himself from as many of the 'costs' as possible.

My Solution: Become a Non-voting Hotel Dweller.

It is far smarter to become a Hotel Dweller than wishing and hoping for everyone – or at least a majority of the stupic large collective of local fuck-nuts and asshole – to uphold their constitution and force the govt's feet to the fire. Forget it. It won't happen.

Now, just in case redbean gets mad, I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives, just offering a suggestion which I know works :-)

Anonymous said...

The PAP keeps harping and insisting that Singapore is different from other democracies, and a two party system cannot work here. Of course, a two party system would definitely make it difficult for the PAP to shaft their policies down our throat without a whimper.

I am not saying that even with a majority of 70% they cannot do it, but with a 30% minority opposition in Parliament, the PAP themselves are hesitant and unsure whether in such a situation, they can just continue steamrolling anything they desire over the bodies of compliant Singaporeans, with few objections. As it is, the two opposition members are always out-talked, out-argued, outgunned and outnumbered by the PAP into silence.

The fact that LHL is wary of having too many opposition in Parliament tells us that he will find it hard to handle a bigger minority in Parliament, who will eventually erode their position if the opposition can consolidate themselves progressively after every election.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

KNN Matilah, don't say I get mad ok. I don't want to land up in IMH for the wrong reason.

As I said, the generation of unthinking grandpas and grandmas is over. The majority of Singaporeans have received some education and can think more than you think. Every bugger who spends all his time watching football or in the race course, or the taxi drivers, they are all thinking people.

But some people still think they are dummies. Talk to them and you will know the difference. Of course there are the exceptions.

And all have to live with one wisdom, like it or not. 2 legs bad, 4 legs good, 3 legs betterer....

Matilah_Singapura said...

again you've missed my point and haven't even proffered a decent riposte :

People might be intelligent and nice as individuals and in ther small social groups -- work, clubs, friends , family, neighbourhood. But when they form LARGE GROUPS and are divided by political issues. ideology and religion they become fucking STUPID and NASTY assholes.

You have no disagreement from me that people today are better educated. When they form big groups, all that shit goes out the window.

Therefore your chances are always much better reaming the self-protected individual who gets to CHOOSE his association rather than be forced into associations by a large mob.

anon 257:

You've missed the point too: If the constitution was upheld beginning with the lowliest of citizens, it doesn't matter what the majority in parliament is: upholding the constitution means all people -- regardless of who they are -- will be treated, under The Rule of Law in an equitable manner.

However, as I've indicated, a better present use for the constitution is for toilet paper.

Matilah_Singapura said...

anon 257:

The PAP are correct: a two party system does not work. If you have to make an 'either-or' choice, that is not a real choice.

Take the USA -- two party system. All pure bullshit. There is no essential differences between Democrats and Republicans. Vote for either and you get the same: taxes, war, debt and deficits.

Same in Australia: two party, 'either-or' choice motherfucking FAKE democracy. Both sides can't wait to enrich themselves with the power to control your life and take your money.

It takes large groups of people to behave like stupid cunts. The more divisive you can get them to be -- like choose between 2, 3, or more parties, the more you'll get fucked-up behaviour and because of the sheer size of the mobtocracy, they'll have the numbers to shit all over whatever 'rights' you have under any Constitution.

Singapore is 'stable' under a one-party authoritarian government. Face the facts: the people cannot handle democracy...and the govt KNOWS IT.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Yes all systems stink in the wrong hands. You ask a dictator which is the best system, his answer will be dictatorship. Ask an emperor and he will say a dynasty. Ask a rat and it will be democracy. Ask the pigs, and it will be communism like the Animal Farm.

George Orwell did not mention anything about corruption in the Animal Farm. Corruption among the pigs was so prevalent and pervasive that it was institutionalised and became a way of life for the pigs.

Matilah_Singapura said...

No one will ever admit to being corrupt. In fact, to ourselves we are the most honest, moral -- the best example of our species. We rarely challenge our self talk, and we are always 'right' and 'better' than even our closest friends.

Now put that basic human attitude into a context of Absolute Power, and you get: a monster.

I think Orwell's point in Animal Farm was to illustrate the stupidity of large 'tribal' groups and how they become particularly nasty when the get the power. In a sense that 'nastiness' could be seen as a corruption of basic decency.

In 1984, the people who don't agree with the government are the one's who are corrupted and need 'correction' after being ruthlessly hunted down.

Absolute Power does indeed corrupt even the most docile and decent of human beings -- eventually.

The whole idea of (republican) representative democracy was to ensure that power given to a specific group of people was limited -- by constitution and the checks and balances like a free press and the right for every citizen to speak freely against the state.

Power was also 'separated' between the judiciary, legislature and executive at the national level and smaller groupings on the community level -- local councils etc.

The (flawed) premise here was that the people always had the power, and that the government was a servant of the people who always had their rights protected by the law of The State. In that sense, even The State is subordinate to the people's natural rights.

The function of the state was only to identify and secure the natural rights of the people -- thus forming a guide or a blueprint on how the govt is run and what they can and cannot do.

Unfortunately there hasn't been a state or a government which has 'behaved itself' -- in the entirety of human history.

Why S'poreans (and others) believe that 'voting in the right people for govt' will 'work' is completely beyond me -- especially when the historical evidence is so damn clear.

Anonymous said...

Let me offer another perspective from the Chinese ancients:

"A man who has a full stomach entertains lusty thoughts"

Just for laughs!

Matilah_Singapura said...

The Chinese ancients were had a great time: plenty of wine to drink, plenty of ganja to smoke or eat, lots of young girls to nail, and a whole lotta time to write indiscernible rubbish down to fool future generations who take this ancient gibberish as 'wisdom'.

Awesome!