consistency in HR policies and job creation

Over the last few days we have seen two conflicting models of human resource management put on the showcase. The first case was the halfing of the pay of a professor at NTU, working for the same number of hours, but the HR dept claimed that his workload is half and thus deserved half pay, at the age of 55. Then we have another model from the PAP. This model emphasises the creation of many high paying jobs. So, other than being an MP, a candidate can be a Prime Minister, Senior Minister, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary. In addition to these positions, more are created like Senior Minister of State, Senior Parliamentary of State and Minister without Portfolio. And if that is not enough, they can have more than one minister in one ministry and more that one minister of state or parliamentary secretary. Not to mention that MPs can also be appointed as Mayors. Between the two models, understandably the second model is better as it is a very creative way of creating more high paying jobs. The NTU model is not only dissecting high paying jobs into halves, but also goes against the govt policies of keeping people gainfully employed after 55. It is also against the trend of people being able to live longer and be economically active till past 80 years. But the important thing is consistency. The govt must be consistent in its policy of encouraging employment past 55 years and to support its call to create more high paying quality jobs. And by setting a good example with its models of having multiple ministers in a ministry and creating more jobs at minister or junior minister levels, other govt or govt link organisations should follow the lead. On the other hand, if each organisation is deemed different and has their own peculiarities like after 55 years, professors and academics will suffer from dementia and their mental faculties will degenerate, then all the professors and academics reaching 55 should also have their workload halves and their pay also halves. Then people cannot cry discrimination or inconsistency. Fairness must be seen, and application of HR policies must be transparent.

banning the da vinci code

An educator and a mother of six pondered over the pros and cons of the movie, The Da Vinci Code and was pleased that it was categorised as NC16. So only her eldest child is allowed to see the show. But she deliberated quite thoroughly on the virtue or approach to ban movies or books that are seen as having a bad influence on children. And for that matter many of the movies screened on prime time TV and computer games should also be banned. Their contents in many instances were anti Christianity or religions, or of questionable moral values. But she came to the conclusion that we should let our children see and judge the movie, to shift through the half truths from the truths themselves. She has faith in the intelligence of her children. Banning the Da Vinci Code is not a solution. For that matter, the explicit descriptions of immoral sexual behaviours and excesses, including incests, in the Old Testament should not be freely available to the children. The Bible should only be for adult readings only.

it is painful watching a freak show

I happened to be fiddling with my remote control button during the commercial break watching Da Vinci Code, and 'Ouch!' It was so painful to my eyes when I saw these few freaks trying to appear queer on TV. And then there was a panel of judges, also trying to look cute and sound cute. My goodness, who is on show, or who is performing? The contestants were there as props. It is the judges that were the performers, trying very hard to be someone they were not. I grimaced with so much pain. I shouted 'Cut, cut, cut!' But nothing I could do except to switch back to the channel I was watching. The commercial break was still on. Then I told myself, it could not be that bad right? So I bravely pushed on the remote button to take another peep. 'Ouch! No, it is just as painful. No way I am going to take a second look ever again. It was supposed to be some kind of idol show. My gosh! Remove the contestants, remove the freaks. Oh, wait a minute, it is the judges that need to be removed.'

my government or my people?

When is enough enough? When will the people stand up and tell the PAP that they will not let the PAP to continue to rough handle anymore? There are some consensus views of what or how the PAP is being seen by the voters in the aftermath of the recent general election. 'The PAP is seen as a very arrogant party, and totally unfair to both the opposition and the people. I am against offering upgrading as a carrot. The money belongs to the nation, not the PAP...Christopher Lee in the ST. 'When the people say that the cost of living is high, the PAP says we have cellphones and air conditioners. When the people ask for GST waivers on necessities and medical items, the PAP says they are subsidised. How to talk to the Govt?'...Neo Kim Seng in the ST. 'During the campaign, the PAP told Hougang and Potong Pasir voters: ...Why be so stupid and continually support the opposition which never contributed constructively in Parliament or which only makes trouble in Parliament?...I am surprised at their unsporting attitude.' Sylvestor Goh in the ST. Despite these views which are quite common and quickly surfaced in a discussion, the PAP is still voted to power for another term. The people are unhappy with a PAP that is seen to treat the people badly and even ignoring the people's pleas with their clever arguments, with their views of what they think is best and not coming around to try to understand the people's concern. But then again, its seems that the voters will have to tolerate the arrogance of PAP, or have to grit their teeth and accept PAP as a matter of no better choice. And worst is that they are happy just to know that the PAP is now trying to be gentler to the people. 'I am a PAP supporter who believes the Govt has done a great job and is changing to adopt a softer approach towards the people...' Billy Lee in the ST. This last quote speaks for all Singaporeans, that they have grown use to be push around, or bashed around and all they can hope for, and will be happy, if only the PAP just try to be a little nicer to them. Is this the attitude and expectation of the people on the PAP or any future govt, that it is the natural state of affair for a govt to be stern and even treat them roughly? When would the Singaporeans said enough is enough, that no govt shall ever mistreat them like thrash or to be thrashed around? And a little kinder govt is a great blessing? Do the Singaporeans ever think that it is only right and proper for any govt to treat them fairly and respectfully? The Singaporeans deserve a govt for what that govt is if they let the govt sit on them as a natural state of thing.

another productivity drive

Quantum Leap In Productivity?by Heng-Cheong Leong Lim Swee Say is asking the low income to "make quantum leap in producitivty" in order to move ahead. Great, let's ask your favorite food court's dish clearing auntie how exactly is she going to clear "quantum leap" number of tables? I guess most folks' answer will simply be either OT or Second Job. Is that all NTUC can do? the easiest and most efficient way to help the aunties to clean more dishes and faster is to buy a few dish washing machines. then one aunty can clean what 10 aunties can do. then can replace the 10 aunties with dish washing machines. then can say productivity of 1 aunty is now equivalent of 10 aunties. i still like the idea of creative management in designing high paying jobs. one way is to create more town councils, maybe one town council for every 10 blocks of flats. and every 10 town councils one mayor. then every ten mayors one zone mayor, and every 3 zone mayors one region mayor. and every 3 region mayors one district mayor. and every 3 district mayors one governor mayor. wow, so many jobs created, and high paying one also.

world cup roar

that was what these proud and loyal supporters of Chaim said about his return for another term. they said the roar was louder than if a world cup goal was scored. the whole estate was on their feet when the result was announced and they celebrated till 3 am. their joy, as a group of citizens, was not contrived or managed. it was simple spontaneous joy of a browbeaten people who stood up against all odds and, as they said, unfair and bullying tactics. this is legendary stuff that will be told to the children by words of mouth.

fiction movies are dangerous

Mr Brown's article in the Today paper suggests that in order to protect our innocent young from being deceived by the new superman movie, the movie should be banned or at least be given a NC16 rating. This, in his reasoning, will save the lives of our children who might start to fly from their double decker beds or their windows. The consequences are so scary as our children will not be able to differentiate between facts and fiction. I fully agree and support his suggestion. We should start a movement, a petition, to ban any movie that has a dangerous influence on our young minds. What I want to add is that the ban should also be extended to those 55 and above. At 55, these oldies are not only half as efficient, but cannot be trusted to look after themselves. And our CPF has made a very good decision in locking up their money as well : )

when 55 is half a goner

When 55 is old. The case of the NTU professor who at 55 is considered old, reduced to half pay is a case of doing and saying different things. If 55 is considered old, then the govt must quickly come up with a plan to terminate everyone reaching 60. After 60, one is no longer worthy to contribute to society regardless of the profession that one is in. And in the academia, 55 is only the beginning when all the information pumped into the little brain has just been simmered to perfection to be dished out to the students and society. I would strongly suggest that if this is what our society think of people at 55, then make it a national policy. Everyone on reaching 55 must have his or her pay halfed. And this policy should start with NTU with no exception. Only exception is in parliament where old is gold

a new dimension in cyberspace

The little war between CNA and Singapore Elections is an example of what the future of the media is like. The long entrenched and preserved territory of the media, once strongly guarded of the selected few, to wield the mighty pen to influence the masses is now being challenged. No longer can the media blow its trumpet and sing its tune with immunity. When they talked nonsense, they will be exposed. Just like the election when politicians talked nonsense, immediately people pounced on them and amplified their loose talks in the cyberspace. Singapore Elections is claiming that CNA had used their pics and doctored them. CNA is saying no. The details are in the Singapore Elections forum. Wow, the media being made to account for what they are doing. Before this development, the media is the boss and print what they like. You may complain if you don't agree, but if they don't response, nothing will be heard and no one will know. Internet has changed all that. They cannot ignore you, in this case Singapore Elections has its own platform to tell the world. Things are getting interesting.

magic of internet and digital photo

The combination of internet plus digital photography is really powerful. Someone shot a few dirty pictures of Marine Parade and posted in Sammyboy. The pictures glorified the litters, rubbish and walls with peeling paintworks. Immediately the town council sprang into action and all the disfigurements, graffittis and dirty spots were attended to by contractors. No MPs worth their salt will be able to live in peace when pictures of their badly maintained estate is floating aroung in the internet. And this same magical tool can be used in other areas as well. Wow, it used to be posting a complaint in the Straits Times forum to get a response. But that way you got to be lucky if the paper publishes it. Otherwise, nothing heard, nothing needs to be done. Now with internet, blogs and forums, sure to be posted and be seen. This is efficiency Singapore style, or internet style.

acjc student blogger warned by teacher

gayle goh, an acjc student engaged bilahari kausikan, 2nd perm sec of foreign affairs on an issue concerning retraining of old workers. the perm sec took the trouble to discuss the issue with her and even encouraged her to be critical in her views. but she was warned by her schoolmates and teachers that her blog deals with social and political issues. what more can i say about the mindset of the young singaporeans when the kiasi attitude is etched in them when they are in school. no discussion on socio political issues. how to change this when on the other hand a top civil servant is trying to encourage our young to speak out.

unfair trading practices by banks

While NTUC Coop is restructuring their business model to cut the cost of selling insurance products, it did not count on the 'hard sell methods' of banks to get customers. When banks use hard sell or unfair tactics to improve sales, should this be questioned? And this is what Tan Kin Lian is doing. Then there is also the new Fair Trading Acts coming into force soon which is supposed to level the playing field and prevent unfair trading practices. For those who advocate a laissez faire environment, they may say it is ok. Any organisation can leverage on their strength to gain market share, like hard sell method' or 'dumping' or undercut the competitors by unfair pricing or inducements. The selling of insurance by high pressure tactic as mentioned by Tan Kin Lian is one of such examples. Another example is for banks to offer below the market commission to retain, attract or capture new customers. This is exactly what some banks are doing, selling some products by underpricing the market and make their profits from their main products. Are such practices ethical and tolerable under the Fair Trading Acts? What would happen is that such practices will destroy the jobs of those businesses with dedicated professionals or agents, and thus causing job loss. It will in the long run also destroy the market as well. This is an area which the govt can do to prevent job loss and curb the Levianthan in the banks. It is the muscling out of small players by big boys and has nothing to do with efficiency and professionalism. And the govt has a duty to protect the small guys from such unfair practices. Unless the govt sees the destruction of jobs as a good thing and authorise or encourage the banks to keep doing what they are doing.

Mudslinging by Mahathir.

A DVD is selling on the streets and pasar malams with contents showing Mahathir attacking the Malaysian govt. He accused the govt of lacking courage and the country going to the dogs. By saying that the govt is lacking courage, he is actually calling all those in govt as cowards. And by saying the latter, he is saying that the country is run by dogs. This is a very offensive terminology in a muslim country when dogs or angin are tabooed in the religion, a very derogatory term. Mahathir should count himself lucky to be in Malaysia. In some countries he will be sued until his pants drop. Those words he used not only challenged the credibility of the govt, he is also attacking the sacred institutions of govt and defaming the leaders.

hi fellas, i hope i am not boring you people

i have been chatting here for quite a while and i am running in danger of boring all of you. the internet is revolutionary in a way. before the blog and the internet forum, we are all at the mercy of the printed and controlled media. they speak, we listen. and when we want to speak by sending them beautifully written letters, they decide whether what you wrote serve their interest or purpose. if not, they will simply throw it in the waste paper basket. you wasted all your effort for nothing. they are our masters. now you don't need anyone's approval to see your words in print. today, the internet has return to us our voice, our right to speak our mind. and all at the press of a few buttons. no one is there to arrogate himself to be your master, to control or manage what you can say or what you cannot say. it is a different kind of freedom. but of course this freedom comes with responsibility. we can use this tool for many different purposes, for selfish goals or, we can fantasise a little by saying that we can use it to benefit society. it may be an illusion, but there is no harm in giving ourselves a little purpose in life. otherwise we will just be chatting at random and quite aimlessly. think about it and voice out your thoughts, and you do not know when or how it could have shape other people's ideas. and if your intention is good, maybe down along the line, your thoughts or ideas could give birth to some better thoughts and ideas. feel free, feel less inhibited, communicate and share your ideas around. cheers.

cost of living and job loss watches

i have created two threads in redbeanforum.com to monitor these two issues that are close to the hearts of the people as these affect them directly and can be very painful. also, both are issues that the elected govt has promised to do for the people. the two threads will monitor the developments in these areas and all of you are encourage to contribute to these threads. primarily we want to see what the govt is doing to reduce the cost of living and to create jobs and not destroying jobs or offering jobs to foreigners at the expense of the citizens. PRs are not citizens and should have lower priority in terms of benefits from govt policies vis a vis citizens. the govt must not forget the contributions and sacrifices of citizens towards the nation and the people who voted them to power.

before smrt raises its fare again

The SMRT is making huge profits again. It has been making profits for many years in the hundreds of millions. And all along it has been claiming that cost is rising and it will lose money if transport fare is not raised. And that they are accountable to theirshareholders as a private company. Is it really a private company in the true sense? Can anyone remember that $6 billion was used from taxpayers money to build the infrastructure which has since been written off. (I stand corrected if anyone can prove to me that I am wrong on this.) Now the management of the SMRT are happily managing the company for profits made from none other than the taxpayers who contributed the $6 billion to its initial cost. If the SMRT is to regard itself as a purely private company, and making money for its shareholders as its primary objective, then it is only right and fair that SMRT make provisions to repay the $6 billion back to the people as it has no obligation to the people. For being given the right as a monopoly business, it cannot lose money like any other business. It only needs to raise fares to cover whatever it wants to cover and whatever profits it wants to make. Where else can there be such a sure to profit business? Where is the business risk? The privatisation does not really benefit the people except shareholders. It is a misnomer to claim that without privatisation it will be inefficient and will run at a loss. This is an insult to all govt andstatutory boards, that they are inefficient because they are not privatised. And in case of a stats board, if the management isinefficient they should be fired and replaced with a new management team. Turning it private is a lousy excuse to improve efficiency. I don't believe that stats board are inefficient just because they are not privatised.

better than pyramid scheme

If I can get hold of the people's money, say $100k per person and guarantee them a small return, maybe 2% better than the bank rate, and they have no right to ask them back, wow, won't that be nice? Then I can use it to invest in anything I want. If I make money, I will reward myself with big fat bonuses, and pat myself on the back and tell everyone how clever I am. If I lose money, I will just call it a bad business decision beyond my control. I still collect my management fee, and even give myself a big raise. And If I cannot afford to pay the dividends, I will only rewrite the terms and extend the payout later, or make them contribute more. This provision will make chit funds and pyramid schemes so amaturish. And also, I will make sure that nobody knows the account. It is only for me to know. Won't that be nice?

lowering medical cost or how to pay

BoonWan is tackling the 'how to pay expensive medical bills again.' I sense that the issue is not how to reduce medical cost, but how to pay the ever increasing cost, through group insurance. I think the root to this problem is high medical cost. And this must be tackled first. Medicare must be rightly divided into those who can afford and don't mind paying and those who cannot afford and needed help. That is why we have a govt and not an anarchic society where there is no govt and if one cannot afford it, just too bad. Another area is for the govt to provide choice for the people to decide what they want to consume and pay for. The govt shall not pre decide who should consume what and pay what. The third area is to educate people to prepare to die. Anyone who passes 65 or 70, must be prepared to die, gracefully, with minimum discomfort, through ageing. The medical service must not play the role of extending life at all cost, thus raising medical cost to an astronomical height. For those who can afford it, they can pay for whatever to extend their life for as long as they want. For many who cannot afford it, and without the means, extension of life is an extension of suffering, a burden to themselves, family and society. The expensive medical procedures and medicine are not doing them any good but increasing their misery. And hopefully, with a review of the objectives of medicare and its role in society, and with a proper insurance scheme tailored to different individual needs, with choices and not a straight jacket formula, no one need to have all their money locked up in medisave and CPF when these can be used to provide them with a better quality of life. Not everyone needs the heavy insurance, not everyone wants to extend their life mindlessly. And many will have other means to pay for their medical needs, including family support. The medisave and medical insurance must allow for flexibility and choice. Otherwise, there is no need for all the supertalents if a simple straight jacket solution is all that the ministry can come out with.

taxing the poor efficiently

Income tax dept should rethink unequal tax cut policy to narrow divide between rich and poor I am an income tax payer. Income tax dept should rethink unequal tax cut policy to narrow divide between rich and poor. However, I am pleasantly surprised to discover that my income tax burden is reduced for assessment year 2006. I gather this information from the IRAS website: Singaporean, individual, salaried earner, top income tax contributors will pay 1% less tax while medium income earner will pay 0.5% less tax compared to last year. But low income earners get no benefit. I would like the IRAS to reconsider unequal income tax reduction. I propose that the system of income tax in 2003 be reinstated with reduction in Goods and Services Tax by at least 3 percentage points. My arguments are simple. Firstly, our system taxes us in an inverted pyramid form, ie. the more I earn, the heavier my tax burden. I find this sensible, reasonable and logical. Secondly, GST is non-discriminatory and it effectively taxes our fellow lower income Singaporeans. In my opinion, this has contributed to the rich and poor divide. Not too low income earners like me should not complain about paying taxes as it is our duty as Singaporeans to contribute and move together forward as a nation. No man gets left behind in my Singapore. Ng Swee Kai The writer's article was published in the Sunday Times forum page. I fully agree with his suggestion. The GST is unjust to the poor through its reasoning that everyone must pay tax, rich or poor. Only rich people will support such a taxation policy where the poor, including the very poor, have to pay tax. Thus the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer.

can the hatchet be buried?

Lets bury the hatchet and get on with life. The election is over, the victor has been announced. There is no need for the viciousness to continue beyond the 9 days. It was already bad to see people fighting like vipers just to contest for power and wealth. It is time to let go and offer some graciousness. There will never be a Mother Teresa in politics. But there are gentlemen who will arrive on the political scene now and then. We lament that not many good men and women are willing to come forward to serve the nation. Is that true? There are many not so good men, there are evil men, but there are also very good men. Why is it that only the second best are offered to the people as leaders of the nation? Or why would good decent men who would willingly step forward to do their little parts for the people stay away? The last general election is perhaps the sanest of all elections we have had. There was almost a complete absence of personal attacks on any poltiicians. No dirty linens aired. Not until the Gomez incident. Even then, the opposition too were behaving like angels. They tackled issues, some controversial, but nothing personal. No good and decent man would want to get involved in gutter politics. No one would want to be threatened or be sued for wanting to serve people, society and nation. Try to imagine the fear that go through Gomez's mind all those days, putting aside the issue of guilt? And when it was over, it was all a storm in a teacup not worthy even to appear in court. But the pressure of being under siege is unnerving and nightmarish at the very least. Would any good men or women want to place themselves in such a situation? And not for a crime, and could be just a presumed intent. Unless the viciousness mentality is removed, we will only have the second best to serve the country. Our politics will never dream of becoming first world. I am not even asking for forgiveness. For there is nothing to warrant forgiveness.

when religious laws take over the country

Housewive ‘I am not a prostitute’ Indonesian moral guardians pick up frightened lady on street with 28 others, including 63-year-old woman. Amy Chew. Reuters May 12, 2006 "PROSTITUTE!" shouted the jeering crowds as a frightened housewife was led out to a show trial enforcing a controversial morality by-law. The evening before, on Feb 27, Lilies Lindawati was detained by officials of Tangerang, 35km west of here, while waiting for a bus home after dark, an offence under the local authority’s anti-prostitution regulations. With Lilies in tow, the officers went on to round up 28 other women. A 63-year-old woman buying rambutan on the roadside was arrested, as were two young girls eating at a stall. They were bundled off to City Hall where they were held for a night and brought to trial the next morning. "There is lipstick and compact powder in your bag. That means you are a prostitute," said the judge, who spoke through a microphone at a makeshift court on the City Hall grounds. Crying, Lilies replied that it was common for women to carry lipstick and compact powder. "But he refused to accept my explanation," said Lilies as she sat on the floor of her one-bedroom house, which she shares with her husband and two children.... Lilies was fined 300,000 rupiah (S$54). She could not pay the fine and was sent to jail with nine other women who also could not afford the fine. This is what can happen what religion takes over in the running of a country and when religious freaks passed themselves around as the agents of god.

gomez, a storm in a teacup

So Gomez is guilty but let off with a stern warning. Perhaps this is the best settlement given the circumstances. From the govt's point it will save a lot of embarrassment and unfavourable publicity in the international arena should the defence put up a strong case and get him acquitted. There is always such possibility in a court of law. The findings and judgement is made by the court and not even the police or prosecutor. Domestically the people found the case repulsive and it will only erode whatever little goodwill that is left. To expend this credit will cost them dearly in the next election. From Gomez and the WP, it is a nightmare that is over. A storm in a teacup which they could do without, and could not afford the time and finance to go through a lengthy legal process. They just did not have the money to fight an expensive court case and I don't think they will have the money to sue anyone. They definitely cannot do a Durai. They are a small party with limited resources.

the sneaky president

Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 10:42 am Post subject: Chen Shui Bian said he had not lose the face of the Taiwanese during his trip overseas and was proud of what he had done. He sneaked into Libya under the cloud of darkness, refused permission to land in US territories except a short stop over in Alaska, near the north pole when he was heading south to Costa Rica in south America. Then he used the ruse of fuel shortage to gain entry into Indonesia in a little island more than 3000 miles from Jakarta and overstayed, leading to an investigation by the Indonesian govt. And he is very proud of all his sneaking around as a Head of State when others will be received with all the plomp and pageantry that a Head of State deserved. No wonder they called him Ah Bian.

mahathir's half truth on the crooked bridge

Mahathir quoted a letter by Choktong claiming that Choktong had agreed to the bridge and that Badawi's govt was wrong to give up the bridge idea. In that letter, it gives the impression that Choktong had compromise Singapore's position on the bridge and Mahathir has a point to carry on with the bridge. But actually Mahathir was speaking half truth or selective truth. He did not tell the whole truth that Choktong sent him another letter to retracted what he had said in his earlier letter. The New Straits Times article below clearly explained what happened. A LETTER from former Singapore prime minister Goh Chok Tong to former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in April 2002 agreeing to Malaysia’s proposal to build a half-bridge across the Johor Strait was rendered void by another letter later that year. Parliamentary secretary to the Foreign Affairs Ministry Ahmad Shabery Cheek said the initial discussions between Goh and Dr Mahathir were on a package deal. "It involved issues such as raw water and land," Ahmad said. But when further developments rendered it difficult to continue discussions on the package deal, Dr Mahathir wrote to Goh in October that year to say that no resolution could be reached on the bridge issue. A week later, Goh replied saying that if this were the case, his first letter would have to be ignored as it was written with the whole package in mind. Ahmad was replying to Senator Datuk Syed Ali Syed Abbas Alhabshee on why Malaysia did not hold Singapore to Goh’s first letter.

singaporeans to help singaporeans

At 11:58 AM SGT, Anonymous said… There is a guy who wrote in the newsapaper yesterday that he will donate his progressive package to Potong Pasir people. I thought this is a good idea. We should start a movement to encourage the people of Singapore to help the fellow citizens at Hougang and P. Pasir with $$. Since the PAP government does not want to do the upgrading at opposition wards; the ordinary Singaporean should stand up and help. Donating $$ to town councils; not to political parties should not end us all in jail. To Singapore Election Watch : pls help to find out how can we channel $$ to Hougang and P Pasir Town Councils, legally. I copy this article from the Singapore Election Watch forum. Quite an interesting proposition. Singaporeans standing up to help fellow Singaporeans.

era of coercion is over

The Straits Times published 3 articles today on the post mortem of the GE. All written by post 65ers. And they share a same line of thought which is best summed up by Koh Buck Song, 'The era of coercion and manipulation is over. The art of persuasion is the new order,...' I am not sure about manipulation, but coercion is surely to give way with the younger group. The views of these young journalists, and the views they extracted from the younger voters, all found that unfair tactics, threats, bullying, highhandedness etc were a put off. The older generation may have to live with such election tactics, and the older politicians may still think that there is nothing wrong with them. In the new future, when the young is going to form a new majority, when the old who have been used to being threatened and bullied are gone, the consequences of following the same formula could be disastrous. The results in Hougang and Potong Pasir, and even Aljunied, have made it clear that political parties that continue to indulge in such practices will have to pay a price. They could have paid the price today if not of the strong personalities around. Some can still get away with murder. Some could say all kinds of things and be laughed away as a joke. But younger politicians who have no track record to brandish and think they could do or say the same things as old warhorses with a string of medals, would only court disasters to themselves. The result of the straw polls conducted by the journalists is very revealing. 60% of the young supported the PAP. 20% supported the PAP out of default as the opposition candidates were of low quality. And 35% did not support the PAP. Now, if in the next election the opposition could put up strong and credible candidates, the 20% who voted by default could go the other way to join the 35%. That will give the opposition a comfortable 55% of the votes. And not to forget the older generation would contribute lesser to the strong base of PAP. The future is interesting to watch.

era of coercion is over

The Straits Times published 3 articles today on the post mortem of the GE. All written by post 65ers. And they share a same line of thought which is best summed up by Koh Buck Song, 'The era of coercion and manipulation is over. The art of persuasion is the new order,...' I am not sure about manipulation, but coercion is surely to give way with the younger group. The views of these young journalists, and the views they extracted from the younger voters, all found that unfair tactics, threats, bullying, highhandedness etc were a put off. The older generation may have to live with such election tactics, and the older politicians may still think that there is nothing wrong with them. In the new future, when the young is going to form a new majority, when the old who have been used to being threatened and bullied are gone, the consequences of following the same formula could be disastrous. The results in Hougang and Potong Pasir, and even Aljunied, have made it clear that political parties that continue to indulge in such practices will have to pay a price. They could have paid the price today if not of the strong personalities around. Some can still get away with murder. Some could say all kinds of things and be laughed away as a joke. But younger politicians who have no track record to brandish and think they could do or say the same things as old warhorses with a string of medals, would only court disasters to themselves. The result of the straw polls conducted by the journalists is very revealing. 60% of the young supported the PAP. 20% supported the PAP out of default as the opposition candidates were of low quality. And 35% did not support the PAP. Now, if in the next election the opposition could put up strong and credible candidates, the 20% who voted by default could go the other way to join the 35%. That will give the opposition a comfortable 55% of the votes. And not to forget the older generation would contribute lesser to the strong base of PAP. The future is interesting to watch.

Below are some of the known characteristics of candidates of PAP and opposition parties. PAP candidates 1. Educationally mostly are high achievers, govt scholars or overseas scholars with outstanding academic results to show. 2. Professionally also high achievers, professionals or senior management staff in govt or private sectors. 3. Family background quite varied but very proud to advertise how poor they were before. Humble background is a badge of honour to be displayed to contrast with their current middle class status and material achievements. 4. Apolitical or not interested in politics or at least not interested to become politicians. To be politicians is not their cup of tea. 5. Even if they are interested in politics they would put on an impression that they are not and are unlikely to step forward on their own. They will quietly and patiently wait to be invited for tea by the party. 6. Honest, man of high moral and integrity, prestine character, flawless. 7. Recruited only after going through many rounds of interviews and assessments by ministers and chopped 'passed' QC certification. 8. Those who are too eager to serve will be immediately rejected. 9. Must have a special liking for the colour white. 10. Willingness to sacrifice their high income and take a pay cut. 11. Only to serve as MP on a part time basis. 12. Speak in perfect English but struggle a little with dialects or mother tongue. Opposition candidates 1. Educationally from a wide band, from O level, ITE, polytechnics to university graduates. But not clearly high achievers academically. 2. Professionally from technicians to managerial level and lower grade professionals. Not high flyers in the profession or organisations. 3. Financially mostly HDB flat dwellers or heartlanders. Still trying to make it to the middle class. Probably from humble beginnings but never crow about them. 4. Politically aware and interested to serve. Volunteer themselves to stand for election or join political parties. No need to be invited for tea. Never hide their interest or intention in politics. 5. Honesty, integrity or people of good character are not broadcast as their trademark. But that does not mean that they are not good people. One thing for sure, they are not monk like or celibate. 6. Probably went through a recruitment interview but not as thorough as the screening process of the PAP. Did not carry a QC certification of approval as a flawless specimen. 7. The more eager they are in politics the better will be their chances of being field for election. 8. Must have a dislike to wear white, or at least feel uncomfortable looking too clean and white. 9. No need to sacrifice any high income to go into politics. So cannot boast that they have made a big sacrifice to serve the people. 10. Committed to serve as full time MP if elected. 11. Very comfortable in dialects or language of the heartlanders. And look every bit like a heartlander, even in habit, mannerism and interests. 12. Don't play golf or drive luxury car. Old Volkswagen or equivalent is their choice..

behavioral change in people

There seems to be a noticeable behavioral change in the people immediately after the election. No, I am not seeing people looking over their shoulders every now and then. But people are seen exercising their necks in another way. They turned their heads up and turning it around, with their eyes making a wide scan across the ceilings, as if looking for something. Then there is this reticent even among friends. Everyone appears inquisitive but guarded. Before a conversation starts, a lot of preliminary probing questions were asked, like who are your friends, whether one is involved in community services or grass root activities, etc. This is a very strange development to date. Why are people getting so cautious. Don't they trust what they said to their friends any more? Maybe my deduction of an innocent inquisitive nature of people is wrong. People are just more concern of their friends, with so much love around us.

the medisave trap

In the New Paper today, an asthma patient was reported to prefer to be resuscitated in hospital during a bout of asthmatic attack than to go on preventive medication. The later was too costly, about $100 a month. Holycow, what bullshit? Can't people afford a miserable $100 for their health? By choosing to go to hospital, she could be resuscitated and paid her medical bills using medisave. If the attempt to resuscitate her came too late, she could die. She was prepared for that. She knew. Our world best healthcare is very affordable. Cannot believe got people cannot afford a monthly preventive medicine bill of $100! I tip the doorman at the 6 star hotel $20 just to give me that big grin which he called a smile. $100 is small change. I think I must walk around more and look see at the real people instead of being driven around in my Benze.

so much love around

Peter Lim wrote this line 'Did you feel the love all around' in his article in the New Paper today. Yes he was talking about the love the politicians were showing to the voters during the campaigning. Never have the people feel so much love for them, to be courted by, wow, of all people, their political masters. And the love was real, tangible love. Not love of the fresh air type. A cool package worth hundreds of millions of hard cash, especially for the people of Hougang and Potong Pasir and Aljunied of course. In Aljunied, during the last hours prior to election, a whole detailed plan of what the PAP will do for the voters was delivered to each household. And so were many other constituencies and GRCs. It was really like Santa Claus was in town, and full of solid love, in hard cash. Housewives accosted with little pats on their darling babies or children, or the children in the arms of politicians. Suddenly life becomes so meaningful, so much warmth. Everyone is so concerned if you have eaten, your health, whether you are still jobless. If only everyday is like that, where the people, the citizens, are so much in demand. Oh yes, not a single one of them dare to be seen shaking the hands of a foreign worker. Yeah, its true, now that I recollect. Definitely not on TV. Then the two poor and penniless MPs of Hougang and Potong Pasir were left wondering what to do, what to offer or what can they offer? They can't even afford to give free salted eggs with plain porridge. So the only thing left for them to give was, yes, love of the fresh air type, with no money attached. And of course their sincerity, which most opposition candidates were attacked for not having. 9 day politicians wannabes, appearing during election and disappearing after that. Where got sincerity? I like Peter Lim's thought that love was all around us. So comforting.

ncmp, no need horse trading or cutting deals

A GRC is an expansion of a single ward. A defeated single ward candidate can still hang on to the ward and try to work in the ward to serve the constituency. For instance Steve Chia had done that and had served his constituency after becoming a NCMP. Now Eric Low and Sitoh would probably do the same, to continue to serve Hougang and Potong Pasir, build up the support for the next election. Now, how is Sylvia going to cover a GRC? It is a 5 single ward combined together. That is why it needs 5 candidates. It is not only fair but logical for all 5 defeated candidates to be appointed as NCMPs so that they can cover the ground. By just appointing one of 5, it lives to its reputation as a half baked scheme to entice the people. The sincerity is not there. It was not meant to work, not meant to be a serious alternative. Talking about uneven playing fields? Talking about offering more NCMPs when there is now an opportunity to put in 5 defeated candidates with the most votes into parliament, but not doing it. How are the people going to believe that this scheme is genuine, to allow more alternative voices to he heard in parliament?

another 666 incident

666 Went to vote yesterday, bringing along my child. A final thing happened what i was at the voting booth. I wanted to put a cross against this party but somehow that was this feeling that i'm doing something wrong. A kind of spiritual feel that i should not do it. Anyway, I went ahead and when I slot the slip into the box, a kind of irrational fear fall over me. I walked out of the place quickly with my child. Once I'm out of the place, I felt much better.That night, while having dinner with my parents, my mom told me that a friend of her - a lady around her age - decided to vote for the PAP as she is scared of voting otherwise. The results of the election came out yesterday, 6/06/2006. The percentage of the eligible votes won by PAP is 66.6%. See the coincidence - 666. I'm just wondering when the time to put that cross, a lot of people felt that irrational fear coming over them and thus vote otherwise?? the above is posted in Life in Singapore, www.singaporeman.blogspot.com. with so many crosses being put on the ballot papers still can't chase away the devil? : )

lets be fair to opposition parties

Aloysius Low Pei Chuan wrote to Voices in Today complaining that the opposition should come up with better plans, and justify them, and that he still had no idea of what the WP proposed. He demanded that the opposition should develop workable plans to solve the problems they have raised such as unemployment, retrenchment etc, rather than just raising them, criticising the govt and stirring up the crowd to win votes. I think this is not a fair statement to throw at the opposition parties. Who really did all the complicated tasks of understanding a problem and coming up with proposals for the govt to approve? It is not just the politicians. The bulk of the work is done by the unseen and unappreciated civil servants. They did all the donkey work and the politicians take all the credits. If the opposition also have the same access to these highly paid and highly qualified civil servants to do the work for them, which they will have if they come into power, then it is fair to expect them to come out with a detail plan. The role of politicians is to set broad politicies, guidelines and objectives. An example is the cost of living. The politicians shall decide whether to bring it down or not. And the details shall be done by the civil servants. Bring down transport fares, bring down medical fares. That is what we expect the politicians to decide and tell the civil servants to come up with solutions. So it is only sufficient for the opposition parties to sell their dreams like the PAP has done. What details should the people demand from the politicians from either side? Even if the details are worked out, how many people will have the time to read them? We should be fair in our expectation and criticism of both parties, ruling and opposition. PS: Can we expect Chiam and Low Thia Khiang to deliver upgrading projects that cost hundreds of millions? We must understand that there are apples and oranges.

fair to offer ncmp seat to sylvia lim?

During the heat of the election, the PAP sweated. For staring in their faces was the fear of losing George Yeo, a key minister in the cabinet, Lim Hwee Hua, a potential minister, Zainul Abidin, also a potential minister or junior minister material. Losing one GRC means losing 5 members of a team. It is all in or all out. The vote for a GRC is a vote for the team, all 5 members are considered to receive the same number of votes. In Aljunied, all 5 opposition candidates received the same highest loser's vote. Why is it that only one NCMP seat being offered? Does it make sense when they are contesting as a whole where theoretically 5 single wards were merged into one? It is only fair that the same logic of all in and all out shall also apply to NCMPs. In this case offering only one seat to Sylvia Lim is unfair. The offer shall be made to all 5 candidates. Taking the same example, if hypothetically, 5 single ward candidates all received the same votes, does it mean that only one can be offered or all 5?

3 voters for PAP and 2 against

At 60% it means that for every 10 Singaporeans, 4 voted for the opposition. Or out of every 5 people, 3 are for PAP and 2 for the Opposition or against the PAP. Our system is so strange that a 66.6% of votes can be translated into 97.6% of parliamentary representation, 82/84. The people, 33.4% of them are represented by 2 MPs. Just to play with numbers, these 2 MPs actually carry on their shoulders, the hopes and worries of 400,000 voters, or 200,000 voters each. The other 800,000 represented by 82 MPs or 10,000 voters to a MP. Now, can Low Thia Khiang and Chiam talk with a louder voice in parliament?

signs of satan

When I posted about the signs of Satan, it was half in jest. And what I am going to say here is also half in jest. There is also a hand signal of Satan that was flashed all over the newspaper on Sunday. This is the same sign that George Bush and Clinton used. In fact it is used by many celebrities from royalties to rock stars and famous personalities The hand sign 'El Diablo' which means 'I love you' is developed by Helen Keller for the deaf. Helen was an occultist and a thosophist, And some wonder whether it was her intention to say 'I love you, Devil?' Is there a hidden message in the hand sign? For the sign is exactly the same sign as that of Satan. For more details on this, please go to http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm. It is a coincidence, a very close coincidence, with 666 and the hand sign appearing all over the newspaper on Sunday. A day when God is resting. Please treat this post with a large dose of salt.

monday morning bulls

Sunday was always a good time to talk cock over anything but nothing. I did with some craps. I didn't know Monday is also a good day for cocks and bulls. They are flashed all over the papers. So I shall just enjoy the fun and add in my own bulls. For those who wanted to call the election as a good sign for Singapore, be it a strong mandate with 85% or one with 55%, it will still be a strong mandate and a strong endorsement for the govt. It will be a vote of confidence and support for stability and continuity. Good for investments. Even if the opposition did come in with a GRC and a few more candidates, this group of people will not change their assessment. But the song will be different. It will still be good for Singapore. It will be a sign of maturity for a mature polity that is gravitating towards a pluralistic democracy with more oppositions. It is very healthy and very good. The western countries will now feel more comfortable to deal with an otherwise perceived authocratic govt. See, the reasoning is up to people to cook. For those who wanted badly to call this a weak mandate and bad for Singapore, it will be another tune. The majority would have gone down more if SDP was not in contention. SDP had lost most of its supporters, and their votes have gone to the ruling party. Without the SDP, the majority could be only 60%! And it will be a bad omen for a new Prime Minister and Singapore. Further, if more opposition parties got into parliament, this group will cry and spread fear that there will now be more instability with the opposition creating more problems and the govt will have to come down hard on them. And this will be a bad sign for investors. See, the bulls are equally interesting and convincing with their arguments.

napoleon had a feast

i had a dream last night. there at the top end of the table, with a full spread of the best food, napoleon sat with a wide beaming smile that his eyes appeard as two slits. and i could see sharksfins over flowing and dripping out from the corners of his mouth. and so were all his comrades from animal farm. all as big and well fed as pigs were supposed to be, and shouting aye, aye to everything napoleon said. after driving out the farmers, they had taken over the farm and feasting themselves like the farmers used to do. the good times were theirs to enjoy.

the sign of 666

Everytime on a Sunday morning I just feel so good to talk craps. I felt the earth moved under my feet last week. But it wasn't enough. Maybe my feet moved instead. 8.7% down in popular vote. Is this a strong mandate or a strong dip. It all depends on what kind of kopitiam head one has. It also depends on what kind of yardstick one uses. It also depends on the motive behind the person calling the it. For those kopitiam heads who expect 85% win, this is a big failure. It must be. It is less than 75% or 70%, not enough to get an A grade. For those who think 65% is a strong mandate, 66.6% is a strong mandate. And for those who just want to call it a strong mandate, any figure will still be called a strong mandate, even if it is 55%. But I don't like the sign. Last week someone told me that the sign of Satan were flashed all over the place. Now 666 is in the front page of the newspaper. Ooooohh me God! What is really important is that the people have spoken. And the victors are thanking the people profusedly, humbling themselves by saying that it is the people's vote. Now after the election, will the people be forgotten? We can expect a few more days of thanking the people, humouring the people that they are the masters of the land. But will the real masters now take over and tell the people to behave? Will the new masters again adopt the attitude that they know what is best for the people and continue to shaft down the throat of the people what they want? For the next five years, the people must watch carefully and make their assessments of the real masters and their actions. Would they listen to the plight and wishes of the people? Would they reverse their thinking that efficiency, big profits of big organisations takes priority over jobs for the people? Will they continue with another round of restructuring to make sure that the big organisations continue to spread their activities and encroaches into every other little businesses to make more profits, and in the process destroying more jobs? Is economics priority, or profit priority more important than political considerations, the welfare of the people? Will the people be allowed to make a decent living by restraining the giant corporations from elbowing everyone out of business? This is a watershed election. It registers the beginning of a shift. Small it may be. But if not arrested, the difference will be seen in the next election. It could be a big shift, not so much of Gomez, but the $10 bil package, with a few thousand dollars in everyone's pocket that makes the difference. It is a very expensive election and could have turned the other way without the heroin jab. Everyone is still feeling a little high. But the effect cannot last long.

kopitiam talk on the election

By now probably 90% of the votes are in and nothing can change the outcome of the election. It is also a good time to talk a bit of nonsense and enjoy the freedom of kopitiam talk. I personally like George Yeo, Lim Hwee Hua and Zainul abidin. In fact many of the PAP candidates are very good people. I also like Sylvia Lim and many of the opposition candidates too. But when contesting a GRC, one team has to go. That is what GRC is all about. It is all in or all out. Choktong has warned the people of the consequences of losing a good minister like George Yeo. All ministers are highly valued and cannot afford to lose in an election. Given such a logic and the importance of a minister, opposition should not even contest a GRC. And he even suggested to cut a deal with the people, offering them even 10 NCMPs if they vote for the ministers. Actually he should have offerred the deal earlier. Then maybe the opposition can trade the deal by contesting only single wards so that no minister need to lose. Opposition candidates walkover in single wards and PAP ministers walkover in GRCs. That would be a good deal, I think. Now that the people are dumped with this GRC dilemma, it would be a waste if George Yeo and his colleagues were defeated. But all is not lost. They could easily land a job that pays them more than what they are getting now. Reminds me of Lim Chee Onn. Happily staying away from politics and making his millions. The next election will be a more interesting one when political parties start to trade deals with one another. And probably there will be no voting. Once the deal is struck, each party will go back with the number of constituencies in their pockets. General election Singapore style.

A final assessment

One week of campaigning is finally over and voters are marching to the polling stations to decide their own fate. I am just wondering whether they know what they are in for? Are they casting their votes for their own good or for their own doom? Whoever they vote for, they will have to live with their choices for the next 5 years. Will they be voting for a party to look after them or to boss over them? The democratic process is a funny thing. It gives you a choice to choose. To choose what? To choose someone to look after your interest or someone to carry a cane to whip you. So far it has been like that. The people are there to choose their master, and happily doing so. In this election it is not to vote for a new govt. The key issue is whether to have more voices to restrain the govt or to confirm that there is no need to restrain the govt. For the former, it is an indication that the people wanted some change, that they are not totally happy with what had happened over the last few years. In the later case, the people will be saying yes, we like what the govt has been doing and the govt can continue to do what it thinks best for the people. The bread and butter issues, a better tomorrow where jobs are aplenty, people can make a living easier, lower cost of living etc will thus be the key decider on who to vote for. Both the opposition parties and ruling parties have addressed these issues to some extent. The rest of the issues raised like quality of candidates, their commitments, upgradings etc were side issues. Then the Gomez incident however, has taken centre stage and could really become the key factor that really tips the scale. PAP has rightly saw an opportunity to discredit the WP's team in Aljunied by creating a big doubt in Gomez. Initially they scored big. But after opening a big wound they got carried away and made themselves into a wolf pack devouring the carcass. The sight turned ugly and nauseating to many people. It shows the ugly side of the PAP at its worst. Even the NKF and Chee Soon Juan saga faded to the background. Chee was silenced and the NKF issue sidelined. In a way this turned out to favour the opposition as they distanced away from Chee and appeared very reasonable. It was a personal vendetta or family feud between the Chees and Lees. Nobody wants to get involved. And without Chee making fiery and reckless speeches, the rally was what it should be with the opposition parties saying what they should be saying and PAP trying to sell their plans for the people. Then things took a plunge for the PAP on the last two days of campaigning. The word 'fix' took on a new meaning. Earlier it was Gomez trying to fix the Elections Dept and the whole government. Now it has a different angle. Gomez made his slip. Now PAP has its slip as well. And this may prove very costly. Though the PMO quickly came out with an apology that it was a slip, the negative thought has already been planted in people's mind. My gut feel of the outcome. Aljunied will go to WP. The WP put up a credible team but got derailed by Gomez. I thought that was the end of WP in Aljunied. But the subsequent barrage of persistent attacks against his blunder levelled the ground again. Then came the PAP slip at Raffles Place and this could be what the WP needs. On the single constituency, Steve Chia has come out quite strongly, very flamboyant and charming in his own ways. His little flirtation with the law seems to be totally forgiven and forgotten. And compare to a goody and clean but dull Gan Kim Yong, Steve Chia comes out a more popular guy. Ho Peng Kee tried his very best but there seems to be a gap. It was quite obvious that he could not bridge and connect with the people in his rally speeches. His attempt to speak the voters lingo was a big effort that did not seem to get through. Ong Ah Heng, the veteran, may lose out to the youthfulness of Lian Chin Way. This is a refreshing face of a young professional, a serious young man who is equal to the PAP's slate of candidates. The voters will have no problem voting for him. Seng Han Thong may find Yip Weng Kee too good a match for him despite his advantage as a current MP. Yip could match him in every area and that should be good enough to carry him to Parliament. Tan Bin Seng would be a close call for Chan Soo Sen. Not that Tan Bin Seng is more superior. But if the people are looking for a decent and credible candidate, they might just give their votes to Bin Seng. As for Hougang and Potong Pasir, it was a gallant attempt by the PAP. But the truth will be repeated and the PAP would have to try harder another time. The PAP's waving of millions of dollars of upgrading programmes did not really draw the right responses they want from the people. Everyone knows that it is the taxpayers' money they are throwing back at the people. Nothing to crow about. In fact Steve Chia's challenge of using his own money, though not much, created more positive impact than the millions being promised by the PAP. The above is just my take. I could be totally wrong.

The forgotten and unappreciated group of people

What can the opposition candidates do? Can they negotiate FTAs, can they invest our huge reserves, work out master plans, bring in investments etc etc etc. Sure they can't. But do they need to? Who are the ones that do all the donkey work? Many may curse and swear at them, faceless policy makers who only know how to play by the books. But they are the real people who do all the thinking and hard work in planning and making sure that the country works like clockwork everyday. You guess it. They are the faceless and thankless civil servants. Politicians mainly set directions and build dreams. The civil servants are the one that get things done. Politicians may say I want medical fees to be reduced. And the civil servants will find ways to get it done. And if the objective is to make more money in transportation, the civil servants in LTA will get to work. Make SIA and PSA the number airport and seaport, and the civil servants will start cracking. Politicians need to have vision, to know what is good for the country, set the goals like Malaysia's 2020 and not winning the world cup in 2010. And politicians must also know that they must look after the people and not be obsessed with profit making per se. What is the point of SIA or DBS making billions when people are retrenched and become jobless? We need political leaders who think and care for the people and their welfare. Not political leaders who care about which organisation is making the most money while the people's welfare is neglected. The political leaders lead and the civil servants do the work. Political leaders must be caring men, decent men. Not necessary clever men who only think of their own pockets.

spreading rumours and inciting anger and insecurity

Chua Chin Hon's article in the ST starts like this: The WP has offered no concrete plans ofr Singapore's future, and has instead been spreading rumours about the rising cost of living, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday. He also criticised the opposition for dwelling on lift upgrading and means testing for hospital stays, with the aim to 'incite' feelings of insecurity and anger among Singaporeans so they would vote for their candidates.' Did Hsien Loong really said these? If people complain or talk about rising cost of living are guilty of spreading rumours, I think all of us are equally guilty. If people question or raise issues about upgrading and means testing, they are inciting feelings of insecurity and anger, I think we all better stop talking about them. Don't want to be accused of spreading rumours and inciting the people. This is dangerous stuff.

Hu scores in his visit to the US

Looks like Hu Jintao went to the US with a very important message during his last trip. I thought he was being slighted by Bush. But from what the way the Bush Administration is treating Chen Shuibian's request for a stop over to Paraguay, it seems that Hu had passed a very strong message to Bush. And the message has sunk in. The Bush is now distancing his administration from Chen and not sleeping with him anymore. In this sense, apart from the intentional American protocol slips, Hu has been successful in getting Bush not to meddle with China Taiwan relations.

invited and uninvited guest politicians

Over the last few days, many descriptions were made of our fresh face politicians. One description compares them to sprinters and long distance runners. The former will appear for a short run and disappear immediately. The latter is in for a long haul, will run the distance, always there. I would like to put the two groups into a clearer perspective. The long distant runners are normally high achievers, academically very brilliant and very successful or promising young people in their professions. They have spend a major part of their lives chasing their dreams of building a successful professional career, not in politics. Then the invitation card came for tea. And most of them will turn down the offer, citing other commitments of work and family. Only after a lot of persuasion will they then reluctantly accept to come forward to serve the people. It seems that to appear not keen to be politicians is a hall mark of this group. Eager beavers are not seen favourably. And once in, they are assured of a long haul. They are virtually assured of winning and becoming MPs. For even if they lose in the election, they will still be appointed as the de facto MP with grassroot leaders and organisations in their charge. And they will have more financial muscles to do more for the people than an elected opposition candidate. They can be assured of a wonderful career ahead of them, win or lose the election. On the other hand, the sprinters, or uninvited guest politicians are normally not that high achievers or very young and untested. They did not wait to be invited. They invited themselves to the political fray, risking a career, reputation and maybe even a lawsuit. This group has no qualms or hesitation about family or career commitment. To serve the people or be politicians seems to be their main life objective. They did not pretend to be uninterested in politics. They came forward on their own to be judged by the people during an election. And if they lose, they have no other means of support, financially or grassroot organisations or a big machinery to keep them active in the constituency. They have to go back to earn a living and be part time politicians. This is a reversal of what they will be, full time politicians when elected but part time politicians if not elected. This is a mark difference from the long distant runner who will be part time politicians when elected and full time politicians when not elected. The above practically sums up the differences between invited and uninvited guest politicians.

one party system is good for singapore

After considering and reconsidering, I think the best political model for Singapore is still a one party govt. There is no need for opposition MPs or opposition parties. They are really a nuisance and only cause problems for the govt. Look at the old estates and upgrading problem. If there is no opposition, no opposition wards like Hougang and Potong Pasir, the HDB would be able to do a systematic, logical and consistent programme to upgrade all the estates according to age and wear and tear. No need to adopt incoherent policies and programmes like some old and deserving estates not getting upgraded, some young and not deserving estates getting upgraded earlier. All these are the faults of opposition parties. Now some older estates, older than Hougang and Potong Pasir, are getting angry because priority is now given to these two estates if PAP wins them over. For the good of Singapore, vote PAP and support a one party system. This is the only sensible and logical way to go. Very pragmatic and very Singapore.

good sausage making machine

how to make good sausages? just find some good meat and throw them into a good sausage making machine and out comes good quality sausage. guaranteed quality sausages from a proven recipe and formula. any sausage from any other machine, with different types of meat will definitely be inferior. there is only one proven machine, branded to last forever. anyone want fine sausages? the recipe includes good quality control, sourcing from the best quality raw material, not leaving any stone unturned, and only sold or saleable locally. not available internationally. may turn bad if exported and exposed to different environment. good for local consumption only. but for the exceptional quality, be prepared to pay the price for it. good stuff doesn't come cheap.

children in wonderland

After the last few days of election campaigning I am more convinced that we are sorely in need of a strong opposition representation in Parliament. I do not know how you people out there feel. Some of you may still think that having opposition is a waste of time. But to me, without opposition we are going to be little children in our little nursery wonderland. For once, the govt is pledging to do so many things for the people, to reduce cost of living, estate upgrading, more jobs etc etc. Even crow problem was neglected and needs an election to be pointed out. I would thought all these problems should be solved a long time ago. But these are problems to be dealt with in the future, after an election. What if there were no opposition, no election? We need competition, opposing and alternative views. We need the other hand to clap. Otherwise we will be clapping with one hand.

Gomez slip: an interim measure

The WP is now under tremendous pressure to do something to parry off the attack on Gomez. To accept the PAP's suggestion and withdraw Gomez at this point in time will immediately destroy their chances in the election. Some WP supporters will see it as a betrayer of their own member. Some will see it as capitulation under PAP's pressure. While the public may see it as an admission of guilt. But not to do anything will allow some who have already been swayed by the logic and evidence presented that WP is part of a conspiracy or Sylvia being involved as well. And that WP is refusing to clean its own house. This is equally bad. Either way, WP's chance of a victory is gravely undermined. What perhaps is a compromise solution and to delay taking immediate action of any kind is for Gomez to make a commitment that he will resigned from the team if he is proven guilty in a court of law. Until a charge is filed against him, and until he is given an opportunity to defend himself in court, he is as innocent as any one. Let the due process of law take its natural course to prove his guilt. And till then, no one shall continue to talk about the case as it will compromise his defence in court later. With such an undertaking by himself, he and his team can then concentrate on the election itself. And should anyone continue to harp on the issue, it could be seen as attempting to interfere in a case pending trial. Now this I am not too sure whether this is sufficient to restrain anyone from passing more comments and further aggravating the situation. At least it is some kind of a response to what the PAP is demanding but without weakening their election effort.

does sylvia lim know?

Sylvia Lim is now expected to be answerable for the actions of Gomez. According to reported evidence, she went to the counter with Gomez to ask for the minority form. And when Gomez was filling the form, she left to attend to the press and returned later. This was what Today paper said: '...Mr Wong said that while Mr Gomez claimed that Ms Lim had seen him submit the form, the tape showed she was not with him when he put the envelope in the bag. "She must know that Mr Gomez has not been truthful. Instead...she has sought to trivialise the matter by saying we are splitting hairs."' Are the two above statements conflicting? Sylvia was not there when Gomez put the form in the bag. So how could she know? She can only know if we know that the two have colluded and planned the whole event. But is there evidence on this? Back to top '); //-->

gomez guilty

The Gomez issue has taken centre stage in this election. He is now faced with an accusation that he intentionally tried to cast doubts on the integrity of the elections department and the election system. This is a serious charge and the PAP expects the WP to take action against him, even to withdraw him from the election. Far from being a 'distracted' candidate who made an 'unintentional omission' and then apologised for it, Mr James Gomez set out to deliberately set up the Elections Dept with the eventual aim of showing that the Govt had no integrity, said Deputy PM Wong Kan Seng.... The acts show beyond any doubt that Mr Gomez lied.' said Mr Wong. 'This was no small lie.' quote Today. According to George Yeo the WP could still contest theelection without Gomez, with only 4 candidates. Should WP continue to field Gomez, then it stands to be seen as either an accomplice or supporting his wrong doing. Does WP has a choice of not doing anything now on the ground that Gomez has not been proven or found guilty by a court of law? Or is Kan Seng's investigation enough to hang him? And if WP take this stand, can the police arrest him and put him in custody pending trial? Is this a seizable offence? At the moment the WP's position is that it is an honest mistake. While the PAP said it is not an honest mistake but with intent to cause mischief. Can the WP continue to contest the election and wait for a charge to be filed against Gomez?

means testing is now not a PAP promise

Boon Wan has said that he is putting the means testing on hold. There are many practical reasons that have yet to be sorted out and if it is too cumbersome, he might not implement it. I hope he remembers that he has cautioned people from spending lavishly on healthcare, that prudence with their money is very important. People should be very careful to have enough for that rainy day, or days. Nobody knows how much is enough when such things are concerned. The other issue that Boon Wan might want to look into is the concept and policies on how to charge for medicare. Can medicare be priced the way a tv or a car be priced? Is the value of life of a young man different from an old man, a worker different from a millionaire? Should they be charged differently in a government/public hospital when everyone is assumed to be the same? Should people be given more choices on how to spread their little savings in their CPF to pay for medicare? Should the govt insist on how much people should pay and dictate the choices for them?

where is the beef?

After four days of rallies, all the people heard were promises of more good things for the people and one upmanship, or trying to run down the opponent. Is this the quality of debate in a general election of a first world country? For having a first world govt and being paid out of this world salary, the people can expect and must demand more quality and substance. It is time for the govt to go down to brass tacks and tell the people what they are going to do to give the people a better life. Yes Hsien Loong said that the govt is going to tackle rising cost of living issues which they have forgotten in the last few years. Ok it is alright to have amnesia and forget that they have to look after the people's interest all the time and not during a general election. Now the people must want to hear what are the steps the govt is going to take to solve the people's problems. How are transport fares and all other fees going to come down? Or they cannot come down, out of the govt's control as they are determined by external factors? What about high cost of medical fees and school fees? What about quality jobs, unemployement and senior workers? Tell the people what will be done and how and when it will be done. These are not new problems and many thinking heads must have been looking at them and would have worked out something by now. They can't be thinking about them now because there is a general election. And for being paid out of this world salary, the people would expect out of this world solutions. So far nothing out of this world have been said. The solution to pay ever higher medical fees by different schemes through insurance and medisave are nothing enlightening. The fees still go up and the people still pay. Show the people some brilliant solutions to justify the high salary so that the people will all shut up and even respect the govt more. But if the solutions are the standard regular increases in fees and fares to maintain good profits, then there is nothing unusual. Four more days to roll out what the govt is going to do, in details. Staying together, moving ahead must now be translated into follow up actions.

Promises PAP should not keep

The PAP boasts about its record of keeping to its promises. What ever they say or toss out to sound the public, it will become a reality. Good or bad, popular or unpopular, righ or wrong, it has been decided and they will go ahead with it. Transport fare increases, school fees, medical fees etc these are as sure as the sun will rise. Now there are two things which they are saying and I wish that they don't keep to their promises. The first is means testing for hospitalisation. This is an outrageous intrusion into people's private life, their finances and difficulties, all to be exposed to some strangers in the name of means testing. Means testing is simply MEAN. Means testing, with an objective to make sure that people cannot stay in C wards if they have some money, is in conflict with the principles of prudence and thrift. People must not be forced by means testing to spend more than they want. And not to forget the fact that the govt is not going to reduce medical fees but to restructure in the payment only, either from insurance or medisave in the cpf, or by instalments. So no one will know when his savings will be depleted either by one or two or triple hospitalisations. How could forcing people to spend more be in line with Boon Wan's call for the people to be prudent in their spending, in protecting their CPF to last their life time? The next promise that came over the air last night is the intent to merge Hougang to Aljunied GRC. And maybe all single wards that were won by the PAP will also go that way. This will ultimately destroy all single wards and turn the whole islands into big GRCs. This is no good as it deprives independent candidates or small political parties to stand. What ever the propositions or promises, what is lacking is choice, freedom of choice. Once decided, all must follow, and only one choice. And do policy makers really believe that a one rule or one option can fit all, meet the needs of a diverse population? Singaporeans need more choices, more freedom of choice. Private hospital can offer the world best medical care by the world best professionals and charge a couple of million bucks to the willing customer. Let market forces determine how willing the customer is prepared to pay. There is no issue about that. If someone like Wee Cho Yaw wants to pay half a million for an appendicitis ops, if he is happy and the private hospital happy, let it be. But govt hospitals cannot operate on market principles. Exceptions may be allowed say for the A wards to compete aggressively and charge exhorbitantly. That is also fine. But the people must have a choice for managed medical fee based on reasonable cost of medicine, equipment and a salary that is not running away with the market. Produce all the doctors that the market needs and let them go to private practice and make their millions. But their earlier years, maybe 5 to 10 years be in public service and be paid a reasonable and not out of this world salary. Many people's lives depend on them, and many people cannot afford crazy medical fees. The govt must not allow govt hospitals to operate freely like commercial hospitals and allow them to hold at ransom the lives of ordinary people. This is irresponsible. Please don't keep to your promises on these.

pap candidates are sincere in wanting to serve

With the hustings heating up, both sides are trying to tell the voters how good and deserving they are. Everyone is there telling the voters that they are there to serve them, the voters are the boss. Some of the PAP candidates are taking the line that the opposition candidates are like terrorists, appear once in 5 years and disappear after that. That oppposition candidates lack sincerity to want to serve the people, are opportunists. The PAP candidates also present themselves as sincere politicians who have been there in the last 5 years serving the people. That it is in their blood to want to serve the people. Presumably even those who have retired from politics would still be there to serve the people after their terms end and would not disappear like opposition candidates. And PAP candidates will also come out voluntarily to stand for election even if they have not been invited for tea. They are always there with the people's welfare at heart. Tea or no tea, they will come forward unlike opposition candidates who invited themselves into the fray and scurrily run away if not elected. So we have sincere PAP candidates versus not so sincere opposition candidates. Candidates who came out to serve after being invited for tea and candidates voluntarily stepping forward wanting to serve without being invited for tea. Another issue that's quite puzzling to me is that Sitoh was very confident that if elected he will upgrade the lifts in Potong Pasir. According to him the estate is too old and he will apply to HDB for lift upgrading fund. Chiam must be sleeping and did not know that his estate is very old and that he could apply to the HDB for lift upgrading fund. And worst, according to Chok Tong, Chiam has no fund to do upgrading for his estate. I would believe that HDB will allocate upgrading fund to whoever is the MP of the estate and running the town council. I may be wrong.

scoring political points

After the relentless attack on Gomez, he came out and apologised. But that was not to be the end of the episode. In Low Thia Khiang's view it was an honest mistake. In the eyes of the PAP, it is not only a Gomez issue. It is about the credibility of WP, about transparency, about the quality of all WP candidates. This is the same kind of reasoning that people will use in politiking. Once a mistake is made, when there is doubt on one of its members, then the whole organisation will be questioned. It is lucky that Durai is not a PAP member or candidate. Or he and PAP will be grilled like how Gomez and WP are being grilled. Scoring political points!

7 May, a new political landscape

On the wee hours of 7 May 06 half of the Singaporeans were soundly asleep. Another half was griped by a state of shock that swept through the island. The youth of Singapore have spoken. And their disillusioned parents have joined forces with them to deliver a crippling blow to the ruling PAP govt. A totally unexpected result was frozen on the tv screen. PAP lost 3 GRCs, East Coast, Aljunied and Ang Mo Kio. Lee Hsien Loong was voted out by a team of young upstarts, all still wet behind their ears, inexperienced and with school text books still left around their tables. Jayakumar, the deputy Prime Minister, lost his stronghold in East Coast. And together with Aljunied, two of the most promising young ministers, George Yeo and Raymond Lim were also sent packing. And all the single ward seats were won by the opposition candidates! It was a crisis beyond imagination and of a scale that shook the whole nation. What now? The worst nightmare had started. It is a bad dream on a Sunday morning. No it can't happen. The election now in its third day is only a formality, a cake walk to another 5 years of PAP rule. Time for breakfast.

an alternative opposition strategy

What I would consider a better strategy to win one GRC is for WP to borrow Abdul Rahman Mohamad from SDA to join Sylvia Lim's team instead of Gomez. And Mohammed Rahizan Yaacob be replaced by either Chia Ti Lik or Perry Tong. Then field the team in Hong Kah or West Coast. The second WP team can take on one of these two PAP team. In this way, the likelihood of scoring a goal is much better than the current strategy of diluting their strength and competing fairly strong PAP teams. I am still puzzled why they think Aljunied and East Coast are easier to take. The slate of opposition teams indicate very clearly that they were unable to attract good professional candidates from the minority communities. Until they are able to bring in a few good minority candidates, theirs is an uphill task.

scoring on the gomez slip

The PAP is not going to let this blunder get away without scoring political points. And they delivered some heavy blows last night, hitting at the incompetence and the non admittance of an error as an attempt to distort a mistake. This is what WP is going to pay for dearly. Sylvia Lim is perhaps the strongest of all the oppositon candidates. Probably much stronger than Low Thia Khiang and Chaim. But her GRC team is now a three legged horse. Even before the first round is over her team is already limping around. What a shame to lose a fight this way.

strategy of convenience

For the sake of logistic convenience, the opposition alliance has concentrated their effort to battle in the north east sector. Superficially this looks clever and convenient. But strategically it is a very simplistic approach to a serious battle like a general election. They have missed taking on the weaker GRCs in the process and instead taken on more formidable opponents in East Coast and even Aljunid and left a few weaker GRCs in the west completely untouched. This may prove very costly as this election could be a watershed and provides a golden opportunity for the opposition to make a dent. But this strategy of convenience may allow this chance to slip away.

Are we first world?

A summary of the features that we are first world standard. 1. Education standard and facilities 2. Medical services and facilities 3. Country infrastructure. 4. Per capita income 5. Economy and GDP 6. Quality of govt 7. Standard of living 8. Cost of living 9. Litigation to solve personal differences 10. Political system Features that are short of first world standard or even third world standard 1. Politics and political process a. over dominance of one party b. exaggerated uneven playing field c. engaging political opponents 2. Quality of opposition parties 3. 250,000 families struggling and need financial assistance. 4. Political immaturity of the people, apathy etc 5. Sense of fear Features that are out of this world 1. Remuneration of politicians 2. Prices of cars 3. Govt control over people's savings

the gomez slips

One slip people will raise an eyebrow, even if it happens in a serious election paper when everyone knows that no mistake is allowed. But it did happened. And everyone got to bend backward to treat it as a genuine honest mistake, though many questions were raised. Yesterday another slip. Now why again? Another Gomez slip? This is one slip too many. Even the most dumb candidate in the whole election will not do it twice. Maybe it is providence. God says Gomez is not destined to run for election. He can only show his face around and appear to be a very keen candidate. But he can never be successful even in the submission of paper stage. That is life. Or perhaps Gomez should switch party. Join one that is meticulous and so efficient that such things will never be allowed to happen. Then he will have a better chance of getting through the first hurdle of the nomination process.

a time and place for freedom

PAP MANIFESTO 1954 Quote: Freedom First However we cannot change the economic structure until we have freedom of political action. Such freedom can be achieved only through an organised mass movement. Independence will not be conferred on the Malayan nation as a gift. It will only be ours when we are organised and united in our fight for independence. What do they mean ? Was it only ideally valid for that era ? Why they seek freedom when it was deprieved of them at that time, and now deprived us when we seek now ! What freedom are we talking about ? Is it not like a freedom fighter after winning change Principle & Belief ! The above was posted by Grunt in redbeanforum and below is my reply to the post. Can I attempt to answer for the change in the manifesto? And if I am wrong, please take it as my biased interpretation. During the fight for freedom from colonial rule, freedom to express, to demonstrate, to fight against the colonialists is paramount. Without the freedom to fight for our own right, then there is no way to achieve independence. Now that independence is achieved, the priorities are bread and butter and nation building. It is unhealthy for the people to have too much freedom to challenge the govt. And the govt is a good govt that is working for the best interest of the nation and people. And the people know that too. So freedom is no longer important. And this is vindicated by the continuous support for the govt despite more and more restrictions over the years on freedom to express or demonstrate. The govt is reading the people correctly. The people is all behind the govt and know that the govt is doing a good job. And they elected the govt to let the govt rule them in the best way the govt thinks fit. The people are happy and not complaining. In this coming election the people will again elect the same govt with a stronger mandate to tell the govt that it can do whatever it thinks is good for the people. Singaporeans will always have the govt of their choice. And this is what Singaporeans want. Only a small group of dissidents think otherwise. Now did I make myself clear? Or are my reasoning reasonable? All the empirical proofs are there. Otherwise the ruling party would have been voted out of office long ago.

full time no good, part time good

Part time MPs are good, full time MPs are not good. It is good to have part time MPs. Personally I rather have good people to be full time MPs. Having part time MPs is like saying that the MP's job is not that important to deserve full time attention. The MPs need only be present when he is free, like in the evening or on weekends. Is the MP's job important enough and deserving enough to have a full time MP? The $13k may be small change to some but very big money to others who reckon it is more than enough to serve the people full time. Given an option, a full time MP must be a better option.

lets tell the politicians

The political parties are telling the people what they stand for and how they are going to serve the people. It is about time the people tell the politicians what they really want to see and what they want the parties to do for them. And I think telling them what the people want is not meddling with party politics and the general elections. Let the politicians fight their battle for the ballot box. And while they are at it, we can tell them what we really want. I hope forumers can contribute to this thread and the message can get across to the politicians. We are just ordinary people and we want things that will benefit us. We do not support any political parties but just want our interests to be taken of. For a start, the retention of CPF money must be minimal, enough to buy an insurance to cover the remaining years from 55 to 75 perhaps and for an annual claim of not more than 20K. My assumption here is that if one is past 60, and cannot afford more than 20K medical bill, it is more pleasant to let nature do the necessary. And the rest be returned to the rightful owner. And anyone still working, employee or employed, should not be made to contribute to CPF except to top up to cover for the above insurance. Let the senior citizens pampered themselves with their hard earn money over a life time. It gets very ridiculous to keep forcing people to save at the ripe age of 55 and above only to be left with a little fortune when their time is up. And they have no chance to be a little extravagant on themselves. Living a lifetime of hands to mouth existence while a nest egg is wasted in the CPF.

singaporeans want to be ruled

The govt is loosening its grip on political discussion and freedom of expression. Singaporeans are so lucky that this is happening. They better thank the govt for being so kind and generous, that they can now feel freer. Today, many of the ruling elite are asking Singaporeans to speak up, especially on issues during the general elections. But they cannot speak and discuss anywhere. They are only allowed to do so in specific domains and media. Or in forums or blogs that are registered with the MDA. This is like putting up a few fish tanks and allow Singaporeans to go in and swim, under watchful eyes. This is freedom of expression that is uniquely Singapore. And the best thing is that Singaporeans are quite happy with this arrangement. My personal assessment is that Singaporeans love to be controlled. They love rules and regulations and a strong govt to tell them what they can do and what they cannot rule. Otherwise they will feel so lost, so insecure. Security and predictability are very important to Singaporeans. They cannot tahan grey areas when they are forced to make judgement for themselves. Such uncertainties are bad for health. Sapping too much energy to think and to make decisions. And they will be voting strongly for a strong govt. The PAP will be getting a stronger mandate in this election. The Singaporeans will vote the PAP to power for more rules and restrictions.

smart, stupid singaporeans - triple ass

The legal position of blogs during the election period has been clarified, but intriguing questions remain about how these alternative media might behave, and what the government's response might be. There are certainly loopholes that enterprising media activists can exploit. First, they can use the web until they are asked to register as political sites. The above is posted in Cherian George's blog and his assessment on postings in blogs and forums is similar to mine. People can continue to post until the authority deems that they are too political and need to be registered with MDA. But, huh, Singaporeans are Singaporeans. The triple SSS, pronounced triple ass, for Smart, Stupid Singaporeans, will do the smart and stupid thing. Just stay far far away from danger zone. Don't post and be safe.

between disorder and an orderly paradise

Singaporeans will be going to the polls to elect a new govt to rule over them. What are the choices available for to the Singaporeans? And are there good choices or is it between the devil and the deep blue sea? On one corner of the arena is a bunch of third world parties. All have not won a general election. A bit ruffle, don't look so professional, did not have the services of PR agencies to have them to dress and groom to look good, and fighting for anything that appears in the horizon. They do not forsee themselves as the govt for a long time to come as the number of candidates willing to stand, and good candidates, are still very small. So they will contend to check on the ruling party as their main function. On the other corner is a well managed political machine with all the resources to outdo the pretender for political office. They have all the track records of economic achievements and the expertise to manage the country and all the big organisations for profits. And they are unashamingly telling the people that they can expect more goodies, more jobs and security but more rules and restrictions on their freedom of expression. Their thinking is that with economic prosperity, the people do not need or want freedom of speech, human rights or related things which are superficial and superfluous. And from the way the people is behaving, it seems that the ruling party's reading of what the people really want is correct. The people are just so happy with the situation they are in and are contented to be apolitical and apathetic to whoever is running the country. The people will just go to vote on polling day to endorse the spectacular records of the ruling party and vote it to power with a bigger mandate. And this is going to happen on polling day. Actually my earlier above description of between the devil and deep blue sea is errorneous. It is between disorder and an orderly paradise.

3rd world vs 1st world politics

In third world politics one can expect certain features and tactics and strategies. For instance party membership is the more the merrier and quality may be compromised. The leadership are those who rose from the ranks and are all fighters in their own right. Some have fought until nothing else to fight about. Taking to the streets, throwing stones and even coup de'tat are quite common in third world politics. It is fortunate that we have laws against unauthorised assembly of more than 4 people or we will have a lot of road demonstrations and stone throwing. And they lack the resources for all the pomps and pageantry. Meet the people sessions will be make shift tables and chairs in the void decks. Funds is always lacking and some may pinch papers, pencils and paper clips from the offices and open themselves to accusation of corruption. Over claiming taxi fares can also happen. And anyone who has the gut and dare to stand for election will be presented as their candidates. In contrast, First world politics is the politics of the rich and powerful and with a lot of resources, especially money. Money is everywhere to do many things. Particularly sueing opponents in the courts of law. Legally, working the system is a standard practice. And there is no chance of being accused of corruption as everything is properly approved. Oppositions thinking of using corruption as a tactic will be disappointed. First world politics operates within the law, knows the law and are able to pay the best legal services money can afford to serve their cause. And with the financial muscle and organisation power, they are able to afford or attract the best qualified candidates to join them. Everyone well groomed and all high achievers. All look so professional, and look so good in the newspapers. First world political parties may accept everyone as party members like third world political parties, but only the best will be chosen to stand for election. First world politics frowns on demonstration to win votes. They work the system to take advantage of the system to win votes. And all done aboveboards. Between First and Third world politics, it is like pitching professional footballers against amateurs.

orchestrated confusion or genuine confusion

"There is nothing to prevent you from pushing your propaganda, to push your programme out either to the students or with the public at large... and if you can carry the ground, if you are right, you win. That's democracy. We're not preventing anybody" ~ Lee Kuan Yew, 31 January 2005 The above was what LKY challenged a Jamie Han, a student if I can remember, to set up his own website. Why is the MDA taking a position that makes postings in forums a touchy issue? Or is it that when LKY said it, it was meant only for normal off peak seasons only. Not during a general election. So many key people saying so many different things. Is it intentional or random shooting off the hips? Knowing PAP well, everything is planned and every move calculated to bear maximum impact. So what is real, or what to believe?