Now we have a new President in Tony Tan. I have set up another poll to measure the emotional attachment to our new President in the Istana. This is just a feel good or feel lousy poll that I guarantee you will not affect the results of the Presidential Election.
And your vote is secret!
8/29/2011
The silent revolution
Spring is here. I can smell it. No it is not the Arab Spring. This Spring is uniquely Singapore, totally silent. Not a sound. No street demonstrations or looting. No gun shots, no Molotov cocktails, no IED, no suicide squads. The streets are completely peaceful and life goes on as normal.
The battle has begun. The battle for Singapore, where Singaporeans are determined to reclaim their island, their rights, their money, their freedom and dignity, has started. The hit squads are there, the snipers, commandos, the infiltrators, the moles, the sleepers, the provocateurs, the squirrels, all are working furiously to gain more grounds.
The establishment is under attacked. Anyone associated with the establishment will not be spared. The presidential hopefuls could swear to it. All the past has been dug out for display, the wrongs, the ill conceived agenda, indiscretion, transgression, the self serving logics, will be retold by those in the know. Many victims wanted to tell their stories, they wanted justice and a reparation for their wrongful detention. They are fearless and standing up crying for justice. Nothing is going to frighten people who have been locked up for many years and in their twilight years.
The establishment is under attacked in all fronts. The latest, the People’s Association and the HDB, proclaimed to be non partisan, non political, are being hung up for a beating. Anyone from the establishment that talked foolishly will become instant targets.
Some from the establishments have crossed over. More will do so. Would those who have compromised themselves while with the establishment also waiting to cross over, to bear witness with their testimonies of their misguided acts?
The revolution is on going, in all fronts, in the silent world of cyberspace. The weapons are as harmless as a note book, laptop, an iphone or an ipad. The insurgents are taking each other out at every battle site. Some were direct and vicious, some were more discreet, some were smoking and you can’t tell which side they are from.
This is a battle without bullets and bloodshed. It is a battle for the truth, for the hearts and minds of the people. Truth shall prevail and triumph with its believers. The playing field is much level and the combatants are equally committed to wage this war.
This is a silent revolution, a soundless revolution, but just as vigorous and exacting on the wills of the soldiers. Who will emerge the victor in this new warfare of netizens?
TRE still down
When I look at Singapore News Alternative, TRE seems to be working. Whenever I click on it, well, it is under repair. And it has been under repair once too often. Many of you too are facing the same problem. I can only hope that this is just a technical problem and not something sinister.
The EP election is over
The election is over, let’s move on. That’s my thought. Afterall, nothing changes, nothing new can be expected from the EP except more of the same until they change the roles of the EP provided in the Constitutions. We can see more charity shows, more kissing of children and more walking in the Istana Park. Just read in the paper that Tony wanted to lend his expertise in fund management to the govt!
I think everyone is still hot about this election and I shall just add in a few comments. From the beginning this was an interesting election. The candidates, four of them and their eligibilities to even run in the election were full of controversies. Even pushing out Tony Tan from his comfort zones in GIC and SPH must have raised eyebrows.
The results of the election will be carefully studied by the political parties. One corner is claiming great victory as the 70% for Tony and Cheng Bock is now claimed as endorsement for the PAP. Is that so? Isn’t Cheng Bock a reject from the PAP camp, a rebel who shocked the PAP by announcing his candidacy? And the PAP could not risk a George Yeo and had to push out its biggest gun to face Cheng Bock.
The 35% for Tony and the 30% for both Jee Say and Kin Lian could be standard distribution of the hard core supporters of the pro and anti PAP camps. These voters are permanent features in any election and can be counted upon without much effort.
What is important is the middle ground. In this case Cheng Bock was the biggest beneficiary. The middle ground stood their ground and the popular vote for Tony plunged to 35%, much less than Teng Cheong’s, and much lesser than the 60% PAP won during the GE. Would these be telling signs of a slide in support for the PAP camp? No, say the ardent PAP analysts. The PAP got 70%. Sure, and be happy and crow about it.
There are many could be’s and should be’s. Many regretted that without the four corner fights there would see a very different picture and a very different President. No one shall blame any of the candidates. It is the right of every citizen, and an honour, to run for the Presidency. There were also attempts to work out a strategy and preventing a split vote situation. I think Kin Lian knew of his chances early and wanted to withdraw by sending out signals to the other candidates. His gestures were turned down as no one wanted even to talk.
Nothing is lost except that the picture of the future is forming and getting clearer. The future of change is in the GE in 2016 and not in this EP election. If Tony did not win, what could happen is a dud Presidency that will be ignored by the govt. There will be noises generated, heat, but no real progress.
The citizens that are looking for change must look at the GE and make it count this time. The PAP’s strength or weakness is exposed, all 35% of it. The middle ground will not be easily won and if the PAP is going to take them for granted, that the 35% for Cheng Bock is also for PAP, it will be interesting comes 2016. For, if the PAP really believes in this, you can expect what the follow through policies in the next few years will be like.
The battle ground is set and the pieces are being placed. Let’s move on.
PS. Put the ears on the ground. Listen to the oohs and aahs, the rumble and regrets. That is what many of the concerned citizens are saying.
I think everyone is still hot about this election and I shall just add in a few comments. From the beginning this was an interesting election. The candidates, four of them and their eligibilities to even run in the election were full of controversies. Even pushing out Tony Tan from his comfort zones in GIC and SPH must have raised eyebrows.
The results of the election will be carefully studied by the political parties. One corner is claiming great victory as the 70% for Tony and Cheng Bock is now claimed as endorsement for the PAP. Is that so? Isn’t Cheng Bock a reject from the PAP camp, a rebel who shocked the PAP by announcing his candidacy? And the PAP could not risk a George Yeo and had to push out its biggest gun to face Cheng Bock.
The 35% for Tony and the 30% for both Jee Say and Kin Lian could be standard distribution of the hard core supporters of the pro and anti PAP camps. These voters are permanent features in any election and can be counted upon without much effort.
What is important is the middle ground. In this case Cheng Bock was the biggest beneficiary. The middle ground stood their ground and the popular vote for Tony plunged to 35%, much less than Teng Cheong’s, and much lesser than the 60% PAP won during the GE. Would these be telling signs of a slide in support for the PAP camp? No, say the ardent PAP analysts. The PAP got 70%. Sure, and be happy and crow about it.
There are many could be’s and should be’s. Many regretted that without the four corner fights there would see a very different picture and a very different President. No one shall blame any of the candidates. It is the right of every citizen, and an honour, to run for the Presidency. There were also attempts to work out a strategy and preventing a split vote situation. I think Kin Lian knew of his chances early and wanted to withdraw by sending out signals to the other candidates. His gestures were turned down as no one wanted even to talk.
Nothing is lost except that the picture of the future is forming and getting clearer. The future of change is in the GE in 2016 and not in this EP election. If Tony did not win, what could happen is a dud Presidency that will be ignored by the govt. There will be noises generated, heat, but no real progress.
The citizens that are looking for change must look at the GE and make it count this time. The PAP’s strength or weakness is exposed, all 35% of it. The middle ground will not be easily won and if the PAP is going to take them for granted, that the 35% for Cheng Bock is also for PAP, it will be interesting comes 2016. For, if the PAP really believes in this, you can expect what the follow through policies in the next few years will be like.
The battle ground is set and the pieces are being placed. Let’s move on.
PS. Put the ears on the ground. Listen to the oohs and aahs, the rumble and regrets. That is what many of the concerned citizens are saying.
8/28/2011
The gambler won
Actually I did not want to make any post today as I was saddened by the results of the polls. While typing this, I was high in spirit of the liquid kind. I voted for checks and balance, but the gambler won. Not I say one hor, I read in the paper and it said Tony’s big gamble pays off.
Come to think of it, it is quite true. No sensible person who is untouchable in SPH and GIC, and probably earning more millions than the Presidency would resign both positions to stand for an election that he may not win. I would not put my money on such a person. And he won by the skin of his teeth. If there were only two candidates, he would have lost badly.
I still cannot get over it. Why would anyone walk into a situation that he could lose so much and win much less? One way to look at it is that he is a great man with great conviction and commitment to the country. That he is willing to make big sacrifices to make sure that the country is in good hands.
The other way of looking at it is that it is a totally silly thing to do. A big gamble for nothing. Only an irrational and silly person would put in such a big stake for lesser returns, and may even lose everything. After this close call, I don’t thing any PAP stalwart would dare to accept such a proposition even with a gun on his head.
Fortunately the gambler won. Or did he? He garnered only 35% of the votes, only a few thousands more than Cheng Bock who had only a softball association to endorse him. Tony has practically the whole machinery on his side, and all the endorsements, and that was all he could get.
Cheng Bock could take away 25% of the votes for PAP to give Tony a fright of his life. And I don’t think the PAP is backing Cheng Bock at all as it would be difficult to explain to Tony for staking his Chairmanship in SPH and GIC and the millions of dollars.
I am not at all comfortable with the outcome and the new President for taking such a big gamble. And I can’t even call him a gambler. A gambler is smarter than this.
8/27/2011
Stock market or casino?
The Australian Stock Exchange has made the most innovative decision to appoint the CEO of a casino as its head. They must have come to realise that the stock market has in all counts nothing but a casino. And they need a casino man with his experience in running a gambling den to manage it. Also, for a gambling den, the strong regulations are vital to protect the customers from being cheated.
In the same page of the ST today, the SGX was reported to tightening its enforcement of errant listed companies. It wanted to do more to prevent more failures. It would apply its rules and regulations to the letter and spirit.
Good sayings, and the problems are always with other people. Has the SGX contributed to the problems, or is the SGX the problem itself? Is there a conflict of interest in its pursuit of profitability and thus violating its own rules and regulations to the letter and spirit?
The introduction of high speed trading, programme trading and the plugging of these super computers into the trading system to trade against the small investors, is this fair trading? Is the playing field level as this is the key principle and spirit that the SGX is to uphold? Then there is the Dark Pool which violates the principle of transparency that is also another key responsibility for the SGX to uphold.
Has the SGX been operating under the same principles and rules and regulations that it is legally bound to uphold? If it doesn’t, who is there to ensure that SGX does according to its mission and role as the operator of a profit making body and its own regulator?
This is another case of who is to regulate the regulators and protect the innocent customers?
8/26/2011
Polling Day - What are we voting for?
We have an election for a ‘lame duck’ President under the Constitution. Yes, he has veto rights to several important areas. He can only exercise his veto if a piece of paper is placed to his desk. If nothing is placed on his desk, there is nothing to veto at all. Get it?
This does not mean that this election is not important. It is, and every citizen must think about it carefully and use his vote wisely. This election is not about voting against the PAP. This election is not about voting the coolest uncle to take pictures with. This election is not about voting someone to kick butts.
This election is about checks and balance. This election is about being sensible and knowing what is good for you and your children. This election is to tell the world that you are not daft.
And you can confirm your daftness by voting for absolute power. You can double confirm your daftness by voting for checks and balance by ‘ka ki lang’, or in English, voting for the same kind to check on the same kind. And you can triple confirm your daftness by voting for both above reasons. And your daftness will forever be carved in stone.
Go to the polling station tomorrow to redeem yourself, your dignity and self respect, that you are not daft, that you are able to think clearly and logically.
What a mischievious post!
The Online Citizen, 25 Aug 2011
There are rumours circulating online that Presidential candidate Tan Jee Say gatecrashed Singapore People’s Party’s (SPP) National Day dinner last Saturday (see HERE).
A Workers’ Party member Melvin Tan who contested in the 2006 General Election, writing a note on his Facebook said that he has chosen to vote for Dr Tan Cheng Bock over Mr Tan Jee Say because Mr Tan Jee Say seem to have “an air of superiority” around him, and also because he did not like how Mr Tan “heckled Tony Tan” in TOC’s ‘Face to Face 2′ Presidential Forum.
That Facebook note is now being circulated widely online.
In the same note Mr Melvin Tan said:
“The last straw was the SPP National Day Dinner on 20 Aug ’11, where I bought tickets to attend to support Chiam See Tong for all he has done for Singapore. TJS (Tan Jee Say) turned up and in my view gate-crashed the event and stole the limelight. From very reliable sources, that wasn’t pleasant for the Chiams or SPP.”
TOC tried to clarify this with SPP and spoke to Dr David Tan, Central Executive Committee member of SPP.
Dr Tan in speaking to TOC said, “It’s untrue! I invited Tan Jee Say in my personal capacity to the dinner. Mr Tan initially declined because of his prior commitments. But later, because of my insistence, he agreed to drop-by to say hello to the Chiams and myself.”
Dr David Tan was Mr Tan Jee Say’s teacher when Mr Tan was a student in Raffles Institution.
When informed that Mr Tan Jee Say would like to drop-by the party to greet the Chiams, Mr and Mrs Chiam welcomed him, clarified Dr David Tan.
Why would this Melvin Tan come out with such a statement that unwary readers would form a bad impression on Tan Jee Say at a critical moment like this? Why, why. why?
Let me think. A lot of conspiracy theories appeared in my mind. For someone who wanted to be an MP, it can be expected that he would make such statements only if the facts were correct. Why would he make such a statement only to be proven wrong immediately by the organisers?
Fishy eh?
There are rumours circulating online that Presidential candidate Tan Jee Say gatecrashed Singapore People’s Party’s (SPP) National Day dinner last Saturday (see HERE).
A Workers’ Party member Melvin Tan who contested in the 2006 General Election, writing a note on his Facebook said that he has chosen to vote for Dr Tan Cheng Bock over Mr Tan Jee Say because Mr Tan Jee Say seem to have “an air of superiority” around him, and also because he did not like how Mr Tan “heckled Tony Tan” in TOC’s ‘Face to Face 2′ Presidential Forum.
That Facebook note is now being circulated widely online.
In the same note Mr Melvin Tan said:
“The last straw was the SPP National Day Dinner on 20 Aug ’11, where I bought tickets to attend to support Chiam See Tong for all he has done for Singapore. TJS (Tan Jee Say) turned up and in my view gate-crashed the event and stole the limelight. From very reliable sources, that wasn’t pleasant for the Chiams or SPP.”
TOC tried to clarify this with SPP and spoke to Dr David Tan, Central Executive Committee member of SPP.
Dr Tan in speaking to TOC said, “It’s untrue! I invited Tan Jee Say in my personal capacity to the dinner. Mr Tan initially declined because of his prior commitments. But later, because of my insistence, he agreed to drop-by to say hello to the Chiams and myself.”
Dr David Tan was Mr Tan Jee Say’s teacher when Mr Tan was a student in Raffles Institution.
When informed that Mr Tan Jee Say would like to drop-by the party to greet the Chiams, Mr and Mrs Chiam welcomed him, clarified Dr David Tan.
Why would this Melvin Tan come out with such a statement that unwary readers would form a bad impression on Tan Jee Say at a critical moment like this? Why, why. why?
Let me think. A lot of conspiracy theories appeared in my mind. For someone who wanted to be an MP, it can be expected that he would make such statements only if the facts were correct. Why would he make such a statement only to be proven wrong immediately by the organisers?
Fishy eh?
New clothes maketh a new man
Are Singaporeans mortals or higher mortals, or simply robotics? We have a Presidential election tomorrow. From the onset of this election the Singaporeans were told that this is a non political election. The Elected President is non political and is above politics. There is no politics involved here, but the higher national interests. So Singaporeans all went about garbling that the election has nothing to do with Singapore’s politics.
Next came the candidates for the presidency. Three resigned from their political parties only a few days ago, and one resigned several years back. All claimed to be independent of any political parties or association. And all claimed that they are now new men and will not be influenced or affected by their past associations. The apolitical Office of the Presidency is safe. It will not be tarnished by any swine that will be elected to serve the interests of political parties.
And no political party stands out to endorse any of the candidates, to keep politics out of the election. Any politicians that endorsed or spoke well for the candidates were speaking in their own personal capacities, with no political agenda.
This is how clean this Presidential election has become. It is a role model for the world to emulate. Change the clothes and change the man. We have instant trees. Now we have instant apolitical men.
My apologies. Think I have a few glasses too many.
Next came the candidates for the presidency. Three resigned from their political parties only a few days ago, and one resigned several years back. All claimed to be independent of any political parties or association. And all claimed that they are now new men and will not be influenced or affected by their past associations. The apolitical Office of the Presidency is safe. It will not be tarnished by any swine that will be elected to serve the interests of political parties.
And no political party stands out to endorse any of the candidates, to keep politics out of the election. Any politicians that endorsed or spoke well for the candidates were speaking in their own personal capacities, with no political agenda.
This is how clean this Presidential election has become. It is a role model for the world to emulate. Change the clothes and change the man. We have instant trees. Now we have instant apolitical men.
My apologies. Think I have a few glasses too many.
Test for daft Singaporeans
This Saturday, 27 Aug 2011, Singapore will again have an opportunity to sit for a test to prove their daftness once again. For so many years, Singaporeans have not only been told that they are daft, they even agreed that it is true and accepted the fact shamelessly.
After a life time of slogging, when many have become grandfathers and grandmothers, when the normal process of growing up and ageing would have made them wiser, they were told that they cannot be trusted with their hard earned money. And this money will be kept away from them, maybe return to them in drips, and in exchange they will be given a piece of paper every month to tell them how rich they are, and also how daft they are.
They were also told that foreigners are here to help them, to create jobs for them. But before doing that, the foreigners would have to take some of their jobs. And if they lost out to the foreigners, they were told to buck up or that they were lazy, less competitive and must go for retraining, for a lower skill job than before. And also, the foreigners are here to help to increase the value of their properties that they cannot sell. For after selling, they would not be able to afford to buy the next property except by downgrading.
There are many other things that were shafted down their throats to confirm their daftness. This Saturday, they will be put on another test to confirm how daft they are, or whether they are beyond redemption.
The test is about a Justice Bao, a Song magistrate that was legendary for his impartial dispensing of justice, without fear or favour. This time the daft Singaporeans were told that Justice Bao has reincarnated. He is going to stand for election as the next President. And Justice Bao will uphold justice with absolute impartiality. He will not be affected by his relations with anyone in the execution of his duties. Any govt official that is corrupt will be beheaded under the tiger head guillotine. The Singaporeans are told to elect this Justice Bao the reincarnated as their President. And Justice Bao will demolish the myth that absolute power will corrupt. With Justice Bao as the President, there is no such thing as corruption of power. The more absolute the power the better for Singaporeans, when Justice Bao is around. Singaporeans will once again be told to vote for absolute power.
Would Singaporeans again prove themselves to be daft and vote the reincarnation of Justice Bao to be their President? The verdict will be out by 28 Aug 2011.
8/25/2011
Latest poll numbers
Less than 12 hours from the election campaign and Tan Jee Say is still in the lead with 69%. Overall his votes have slipped by 5% from the day the polls were set up. The other three candidates have a small share each of the 5% votes from Jee Say. Tan Cheng Bock is now at 18%, Tan Kin Lian at 6% and Tony Tan at 5%.
What do these numbers tell? There are a couple of assumptions that can be used to interpret how they would reflect the actual election. One, assuming that all those voting in this poll are anti PAP votes, which is not the case as some still voted for Tony and Cheng Bock is running in second place, and if the overall votes cast against the PAP is 50%, Tan Jee Say is going to garner 34.5% of popular votes. And this is likely to be the base support for Tan Jee Say.
Tan Kin Lian’s position is looking pretty weak and may lose more grounds on actual voting if the voters choose to throw everything with Tan Jee Say.
The big question now is between Tan Cheng Bock and Tony Tan. Theoretically, with all the endorsements, Tony Tan should carry at least 70% of the pro PAP votes. This will put him neck to neck with Jee Say at 35% against Jee Say’s 34.5%.
Tan Cheng Bock will have the balance of 15% plus the anti PAP votes of 9% (18% x 50) giving him 24%. His only chance to be in the running will be to take away more votes from Tony. To give him a real chance of catching up with Jee Say, he will have to take near to 50% of the pro PAP votes, which will give him 34% (25 + 9). 40% will not be good enough.
However, if Tony’s share of the pro PAP votes goes down to 60%, his total is going to be 30% (60% x 50) which will make him precariously close to losing to Tan Jee Say.
What is quite sure in this election is that 40% will be casting against the PAP camp with a likelihood of 50% this time. The pro PAP camp can count on 30% solid support plus another 20% swing votes. So my conclusion is that it will be Tan Jee Say versus Tony Tan or Tan Cheng Bock. It will be very close and if the anger is strong enough against the PAP, Jee Say is likely to be in with Cheng Bock pulling down Tony’s vote but not enough to lift him over Jee Say.
My take is on Jee Say taking a slight edge, beating Tony and Cheng Bock by a nose. But, if the polls here is representing 70% of all voters, less the 30% of hard core PAP supporters, then Jee Say is going to romp in with a comfortable 49% of votes count.
What do these numbers tell? There are a couple of assumptions that can be used to interpret how they would reflect the actual election. One, assuming that all those voting in this poll are anti PAP votes, which is not the case as some still voted for Tony and Cheng Bock is running in second place, and if the overall votes cast against the PAP is 50%, Tan Jee Say is going to garner 34.5% of popular votes. And this is likely to be the base support for Tan Jee Say.
Tan Kin Lian’s position is looking pretty weak and may lose more grounds on actual voting if the voters choose to throw everything with Tan Jee Say.
The big question now is between Tan Cheng Bock and Tony Tan. Theoretically, with all the endorsements, Tony Tan should carry at least 70% of the pro PAP votes. This will put him neck to neck with Jee Say at 35% against Jee Say’s 34.5%.
Tan Cheng Bock will have the balance of 15% plus the anti PAP votes of 9% (18% x 50) giving him 24%. His only chance to be in the running will be to take away more votes from Tony. To give him a real chance of catching up with Jee Say, he will have to take near to 50% of the pro PAP votes, which will give him 34% (25 + 9). 40% will not be good enough.
However, if Tony’s share of the pro PAP votes goes down to 60%, his total is going to be 30% (60% x 50) which will make him precariously close to losing to Tan Jee Say.
What is quite sure in this election is that 40% will be casting against the PAP camp with a likelihood of 50% this time. The pro PAP camp can count on 30% solid support plus another 20% swing votes. So my conclusion is that it will be Tan Jee Say versus Tony Tan or Tan Cheng Bock. It will be very close and if the anger is strong enough against the PAP, Jee Say is likely to be in with Cheng Bock pulling down Tony’s vote but not enough to lift him over Jee Say.
My take is on Jee Say taking a slight edge, beating Tony and Cheng Bock by a nose. But, if the polls here is representing 70% of all voters, less the 30% of hard core PAP supporters, then Jee Say is going to romp in with a comfortable 49% of votes count.
The arithmetic of the 26 sites
The PA is leasing 26 sites from the HDB for community events. How long is the lease and how much would it cost the PA for the lease? The next question is the number of days that these sites will be used.
If the usage of the sites, averaging once a week for each site, it will mean that the sites will be unused for 365 - 52 days or 313 days. Double the usage to 2 days every week, ie Sat and Sun, it will still be 261 days unused. A long lease in such a case would mean that the PA will be paying the HDB 261 to 313 days for not using them. Ok, the rate of rental for long lease could be lower than daily rate.
The question is whether it is cheaper for PA to pay for rental of the sites on a used basis, or daily rate? I don’t have the numbers but I think it will be much cheaper to pay on use than to pay for long term lease when the sites are not intensively used.
Can someone work out the numbers? One thing good about paying from one pocket to another pocket is that it will look good on economic numbers like GDP. Perhaps the PA could sublet the sites at a higher rate with profits.
If the usage of the sites, averaging once a week for each site, it will mean that the sites will be unused for 365 - 52 days or 313 days. Double the usage to 2 days every week, ie Sat and Sun, it will still be 261 days unused. A long lease in such a case would mean that the PA will be paying the HDB 261 to 313 days for not using them. Ok, the rate of rental for long lease could be lower than daily rate.
The question is whether it is cheaper for PA to pay for rental of the sites on a used basis, or daily rate? I don’t have the numbers but I think it will be much cheaper to pay on use than to pay for long term lease when the sites are not intensively used.
Can someone work out the numbers? One thing good about paying from one pocket to another pocket is that it will look good on economic numbers like GDP. Perhaps the PA could sublet the sites at a higher rate with profits.
What is happening in the stock market?
Hundreds of millions have been lost in the stock market by small investors since programme trading, algo and high computers were attached to the system of the stock market. This development means that the big funds are able to take full advantage of technology by plugging their computers into a system that they were once forbidden to do so, and trade against small investors, and cleaning them up.
Nobody is crying foul, or nobody dares to, or nobody wants to. So everyone pretends like there is nothing wrong, just like the toxic notes and Lehman bond crisis. The money lost in the stock market is many multiples of the previous scam and the number of victims were much more numerous.
One day it is going to explode and as usual, everyone will pretend to be ignorant of it. Everyone will say I dunno. Is there anything wrong with the stock market trading system? Is there a level playing field? Are there any violations to the rules and regulations of stock trading?
I swear to god that there is nothing wrong. I think the system is perfect, and volume is increasing and the stock exchange is making a lot more money than before. Those losers just got to blame themselves. I am sure the SGX and MAS know exactly what they are doing and everything is just fine. We can trust the super talents to do their homework as they are paid very well to do their jobs.
Some people have been complaining to me that something is really foul with the system. I disagree completely. But if they do feel strongly that something is wrong they need to prove it. Or they may want to take advantage of the presidential election and bring their grouses to the presidential hopefuls. These are honourable men who have pledged to safeguard the nation’s reserves with integrity. And if the small investors think that are caught in a scam, and brought to their attention, they will definitely take up their case to protect the small investors. They are men of honour and their positions with regards to the banning of MP Chen Show Mao in Aljunied are testimonies to their principles for fair play and justice.
Bring the problems to them and let them raise the issues with the proper authority. For me, I don’t see anything wrong so I would not know what to say. The SRS, SIAS, the broking houses, too are interested parties and they too did not see anything wrong and are not complaining.
Those people who complain about unfair practices, uneven playing field, unfair advantages, may not have a case, I think. If they think they cannot beat the system, don’t get it. It is caveat emptor.
How a LPPL President can be critical to a power shift?
In my earlier article I explained why the EP is at most a LPPL President. His key role to check on a rogue govt is at best a scarecrow attempt. A rogue govt in all counts will be in control of every instrument of the state and would just rubbish the EP if they have to, and there is nothing the EP can do about it. They could crudely bundle him out of the Istana in a gunny sack.
But under certain conditions, the EP is a source of strength in a contest for power and dominance. A likely scenario where the EP can play a crucial role is during a freak election. Take the last GE for illustration. If the PAP had lost the election they will have to rely on the EP for some semblance of authority and legitimacy if they want to take up a fight with the new govt. My speculation below is just for discussion.
When a new party takes office, what it would face is a whole machinery of govt organizations with heads appointed by the defeated ruling govt. The loyalty of these heads, from the military, civil service, judicial and all the ministries are likely to be still with the past govt. And the new govt would have to make changes to be rubber stamped by the EP. See what the EP can do in such a situation? The retention of all the incumbents in office will mean that the defeated party is still the de facto force to reckon with. And the new govt will have a hard time if these heads refuse to tow the line, and cannot be removed because of a veto by the EP.
Any attempt to break the impasse would only lead to more tension, and raises the importance of the EP office that is backed up by all the incumbent heads. Yes, this will include the military, police and all uniformed groups. Someone said they will be called upon to remove a rogue govt or a new govt. Possible, likely? In such a situation, the authority of the EP can be called upon to march out the troops. That is the only legitimate source of power left for the ex govt.
And yes, the EP can block any attempt to touch the reserves with all the govt agencies behind him. He is not a lame duck or a straw man in such a situation.
The EP is the fall back position. And he is worth every cent paid to him when such a situation arises. Don’t pray, pray with the LPPL President. He has a big role to play when a crisis demands it. Other than this, his role is primarily ceremonial. Nathan lives that role perfectly, to the letter in the Constitution. And Tony Tan knows it too. He will be an excellent EP in the same mould as Nathan.
The other 3 candidates appeared to be eager beavers, wanting to do a lot of things that the EP was not designed to do. A strong PM can completely ignore him or shut him off. Can an EP order a PM or minister to listen to his rants or to have tea with him? All they need to do is to tell him they are busy. Period.
But under certain conditions, the EP is a source of strength in a contest for power and dominance. A likely scenario where the EP can play a crucial role is during a freak election. Take the last GE for illustration. If the PAP had lost the election they will have to rely on the EP for some semblance of authority and legitimacy if they want to take up a fight with the new govt. My speculation below is just for discussion.
When a new party takes office, what it would face is a whole machinery of govt organizations with heads appointed by the defeated ruling govt. The loyalty of these heads, from the military, civil service, judicial and all the ministries are likely to be still with the past govt. And the new govt would have to make changes to be rubber stamped by the EP. See what the EP can do in such a situation? The retention of all the incumbents in office will mean that the defeated party is still the de facto force to reckon with. And the new govt will have a hard time if these heads refuse to tow the line, and cannot be removed because of a veto by the EP.
Any attempt to break the impasse would only lead to more tension, and raises the importance of the EP office that is backed up by all the incumbent heads. Yes, this will include the military, police and all uniformed groups. Someone said they will be called upon to remove a rogue govt or a new govt. Possible, likely? In such a situation, the authority of the EP can be called upon to march out the troops. That is the only legitimate source of power left for the ex govt.
And yes, the EP can block any attempt to touch the reserves with all the govt agencies behind him. He is not a lame duck or a straw man in such a situation.
The EP is the fall back position. And he is worth every cent paid to him when such a situation arises. Don’t pray, pray with the LPPL President. He has a big role to play when a crisis demands it. Other than this, his role is primarily ceremonial. Nathan lives that role perfectly, to the letter in the Constitution. And Tony Tan knows it too. He will be an excellent EP in the same mould as Nathan.
The other 3 candidates appeared to be eager beavers, wanting to do a lot of things that the EP was not designed to do. A strong PM can completely ignore him or shut him off. Can an EP order a PM or minister to listen to his rants or to have tea with him? All they need to do is to tell him they are busy. Period.
8/24/2011
30,000 0r 8,000, who is bluffing?
The media reported that 8,000 people attended Tan Jee Say’s rally last night at Toa Payoh. The social media reported that the crowd was at least 30,000 strong, with pictures to show. Between 30,000 and 8,000, a simple estimate can be made by a quick glance as the difference is vast.
Claiming 8,000 as 30,000 or 30,000 as 8,000 is simply idiotic and unbecoming. Someone’s integrity is at stake.
Claiming 8,000 as 30,000 or 30,000 as 8,000 is simply idiotic and unbecoming. Someone’s integrity is at stake.
The Establishment strikes back
The reason for grabbing the 26 sites in Aljunied GRC could be due to the difficulties faced by PA in getting sites for its activities in Hougang. This is the reason reported in the media today. So, to protect its interests, to be able to get sites for its community events, the PA arranged with the HDB to ‘chope’ the sites first.
This has led to an open accusation by the WP that HDB or the PA is abusing their authority. And it looks like WP has all the facts in their favour and may take the next step, to haul the two agencies to court. Unprecedented and unbelieveable. Historically it was always the establishment taking its political opponents to court. Now it is the other way round.
How would this be played out in court and would the WP be victorious in their charges? This may not be that important. It is the publicity in the media of the abuses of authority by govt agencies, if can be proven, that will steal the limelight. And a few heads will roll when they failed in the defence of their actions. And there will be red faces if someone is found to have sanctioned the act or authorized it. Tony Tan said must get to the facts.
This is something that is good coming out of the Presidential race. The pro establishment candidates have to make a stand. And they made their stand for fairness, justice and equality. Tony Tan even called for an investigation to see to it that justice is seen to be done. Cheng Bock said the incident was sad and called for respect for the elected representative of the people. Was there disrespect shown? Who has the audacity to show disrespect to an elected representative of the people? Definitely not any civil servant or community leaders. If there is, then an apology is only appropriate.
Tan Jee Say and Kin Lian too were unhappy that such abuses happened in this way. Both called for a non partisan civil service and to treat all MPs equally and with respect. What is scary is that if there are people who think they can show disrespect to MPs. Hopefully this issue will be put to rest with the PM making a public statement to warn anyone intending to do so. Then there is the possibility of the case going to court and a court punishment, if it can be proven.
Election rivalry and politicking should end after the GE and both sides should close rank to work together, even if their positions are different. Trying to upstage another using unfair tactics is not only unacceptable but a poor reflection of the integrity of any party caught with its pants down.
Would this be the last case of such ugly incident? PA has withdrawn its conditions to prevent opposition MPs from using its leased sites provided the event is non political. As a political student, everything is political, and everything is non political. Would the PA like to clarify on this position? Is a cycling event organized by a political party a political event? Is a seventh moon festival where a MP is invited a political event? When does an event become political?
This has led to an open accusation by the WP that HDB or the PA is abusing their authority. And it looks like WP has all the facts in their favour and may take the next step, to haul the two agencies to court. Unprecedented and unbelieveable. Historically it was always the establishment taking its political opponents to court. Now it is the other way round.
How would this be played out in court and would the WP be victorious in their charges? This may not be that important. It is the publicity in the media of the abuses of authority by govt agencies, if can be proven, that will steal the limelight. And a few heads will roll when they failed in the defence of their actions. And there will be red faces if someone is found to have sanctioned the act or authorized it. Tony Tan said must get to the facts.
This is something that is good coming out of the Presidential race. The pro establishment candidates have to make a stand. And they made their stand for fairness, justice and equality. Tony Tan even called for an investigation to see to it that justice is seen to be done. Cheng Bock said the incident was sad and called for respect for the elected representative of the people. Was there disrespect shown? Who has the audacity to show disrespect to an elected representative of the people? Definitely not any civil servant or community leaders. If there is, then an apology is only appropriate.
Tan Jee Say and Kin Lian too were unhappy that such abuses happened in this way. Both called for a non partisan civil service and to treat all MPs equally and with respect. What is scary is that if there are people who think they can show disrespect to MPs. Hopefully this issue will be put to rest with the PM making a public statement to warn anyone intending to do so. Then there is the possibility of the case going to court and a court punishment, if it can be proven.
Election rivalry and politicking should end after the GE and both sides should close rank to work together, even if their positions are different. Trying to upstage another using unfair tactics is not only unacceptable but a poor reflection of the integrity of any party caught with its pants down.
Would this be the last case of such ugly incident? PA has withdrawn its conditions to prevent opposition MPs from using its leased sites provided the event is non political. As a political student, everything is political, and everything is non political. Would the PA like to clarify on this position? Is a cycling event organized by a political party a political event? Is a seventh moon festival where a MP is invited a political event? When does an event become political?
8/23/2011
What is the presidential election about?
Some wanted to vote for a dignified face to show the world. Some wanted a wise looking one. Some wanted one that can carry himself well when in the company of foreign dignitaries. Some wanted a president that they can shake his hand and take photograph with. Some wanted a nice guy. Some wanted a moderate and reasonable guy.
What is the most important issue of this presidential election? Checks and balance. We have a strong govt, in fact a very strong govt. Like in all strong and powerful regimes, sometimes thing may go wrong. And when things go wrong, we want someone to stand up and say ‘Stop.’ We want someone to be there, constantly watching and checking, not someone going around to be a nice guy, a popular guy, shaking hands with everyone, or trying to cosy up to the Prime Minister, to be in his good book, so that he will be more disposed and amiable to suggestions and views.
The check on a rogue govt is not what a nice guy can do. If we are serious, we need to find the right guy with the right temperament and intent, to do the job. The people must not be distracted by all the wishy washy nice to have or nice to be presidential pursuits. Only one thing counts. For the rest, a good looking nice guy president, you only need a ceremonial one. And there is no need to go for an election.
The act of electing a president is to give him the moral and legal rights to stand up to a rogue govt. He is there, elected by the people, with the people behind him, to speak and protect the interest of the country, and the reserves. The people must think very carefully who they think can do this job.
Who can provide the checks and balance in the most objective and impartial way, without fear or favour? With proper decorum of course.
What is the most important issue of this presidential election? Checks and balance. We have a strong govt, in fact a very strong govt. Like in all strong and powerful regimes, sometimes thing may go wrong. And when things go wrong, we want someone to stand up and say ‘Stop.’ We want someone to be there, constantly watching and checking, not someone going around to be a nice guy, a popular guy, shaking hands with everyone, or trying to cosy up to the Prime Minister, to be in his good book, so that he will be more disposed and amiable to suggestions and views.
The check on a rogue govt is not what a nice guy can do. If we are serious, we need to find the right guy with the right temperament and intent, to do the job. The people must not be distracted by all the wishy washy nice to have or nice to be presidential pursuits. Only one thing counts. For the rest, a good looking nice guy president, you only need a ceremonial one. And there is no need to go for an election.
The act of electing a president is to give him the moral and legal rights to stand up to a rogue govt. He is there, elected by the people, with the people behind him, to speak and protect the interest of the country, and the reserves. The people must think very carefully who they think can do this job.
Who can provide the checks and balance in the most objective and impartial way, without fear or favour? With proper decorum of course.
The PA is a non political organization
The People’s Association is a statutory board and a non political organization. Who dares to challenge its non political and non partisan status in organizing community services? Even the community centres, now called community club, are not called political clubs or associations.
There is no politician in the organizations. Oh the MPs are only advisors of grassroots organizations which are also non political. The Chairman of the PA, someone told me is the Prime Minister. OK, he is the Chairman but not there as a politician. Maybe the Chairman’s position is akin to the President of Singapore, non political, a unifying figure, non partisan.
All of PA’s premises are out of bound to politicians. Even those common areas it leased from the HDB are only for non political community events. MPs cannot attend as they will make the event political. I think, correct me if I am wrong, an MP cannot go to the community club to pee if nature calls. It is strictly non political and does not need the presence of any political animal to tarnish its clean and non political image.
Please feel free to disagree with me. I never say that everything I said is 100% correct. Sure there are things that I said were wrong or wrongly conceived. Sure I must have made many mistakes. Please forgive me. I am just a lesser mortal.
Cowboy country or Rule of Law
The lunatic fringes are lurking in the cowboy country in cyberspace. In the other physical dimension there are all kinds of rules and laws governing the citizens and the lunatic fringes. I am presently surprised that there are more rules than I have thought of that are enforceable by the men in blue.
I read a case of a TOC reporter being hauled to the police station by the transport authority for taking photographs of an accident involving buses. According to the transport official, the organization has rules that forbid the public from taking such photographs. Though the police initially said that there was no case, they eventually took down the particulars of the photographer at the insistence of the transport official. Not sure if the photographer has to submit a report of the incident.
This is especially frightening to me as an avid photographer. Now I am not sure when a private organization is going to drag me to the police station for violating their company rules and regulations. Scary isn’t it? Would the police be kind enough to enlighten the ignorant public of such private rules and regulations and whether the police will apply these private laws to apprehend the public.
We also have a non political organization like the PA with the authority to ban elected representative of the people from public functions because they have ownership of the property by virtue of a lease. I cannot imagine property owners renting their properties to individuals and forbid them from inviting politicians to their premises. The Workers Party is reported in the Today paper for accusing the HDB for abuse of authority by leasing common areas to the PA which then forbids MPs, unless appointed as grassroots advisers, from attending functions held in those properties.
Funny that a non political organization like the HDB ‘is abusing its powers as land owner of common property in HDB estates to help the PA(another non political organization) achieve the political objectives. The part in within inverted commas was quoted from the Today paper.
Very strange developments. Non political organizations somehow seen as playing politics or achieving political objectives. I am sure the HDB and PA are doing everything within their constitutions and rules and regulations as non political organisations, and their actions are all within the principles of rule of law. I am wondering what would happen if an opposition MP invited himself to a community event in a PA leased property that forbids his presence? Would the police be called in to take down the MP’s particular and record a statement from the MP?
Rule of law is good as it makes it very clear what the citizens can or cannot do. What is troubling is that many of these rules and laws are private and not known to the public and many innocent people with no intent to break these rules of private authorities will be caught unguarded. Perhaps organizations like the transport authority could publish all the forbidden rules in the media to help the public to avoid violating their rules and laws. And all organizations with their private rules and laws should also do so.
I will stay indoor for the next 6 months until all the private authorities publish their rules and laws affecting the public. Then only will I feel safe to step out of my flat. And definitely I will not dare to take photographs of public transport vehicles and their activities. Maybe I should hang up my camera for good. I am a law abiding citizen and will obey all laws as long as they are laws. If the karang guni man has his own laws, I will also make sure not to infringe them. Life can be quite scary in a country run by the rule of law.
I read a case of a TOC reporter being hauled to the police station by the transport authority for taking photographs of an accident involving buses. According to the transport official, the organization has rules that forbid the public from taking such photographs. Though the police initially said that there was no case, they eventually took down the particulars of the photographer at the insistence of the transport official. Not sure if the photographer has to submit a report of the incident.
This is especially frightening to me as an avid photographer. Now I am not sure when a private organization is going to drag me to the police station for violating their company rules and regulations. Scary isn’t it? Would the police be kind enough to enlighten the ignorant public of such private rules and regulations and whether the police will apply these private laws to apprehend the public.
We also have a non political organization like the PA with the authority to ban elected representative of the people from public functions because they have ownership of the property by virtue of a lease. I cannot imagine property owners renting their properties to individuals and forbid them from inviting politicians to their premises. The Workers Party is reported in the Today paper for accusing the HDB for abuse of authority by leasing common areas to the PA which then forbids MPs, unless appointed as grassroots advisers, from attending functions held in those properties.
Funny that a non political organization like the HDB ‘is abusing its powers as land owner of common property in HDB estates to help the PA(another non political organization) achieve the political objectives. The part in within inverted commas was quoted from the Today paper.
Very strange developments. Non political organizations somehow seen as playing politics or achieving political objectives. I am sure the HDB and PA are doing everything within their constitutions and rules and regulations as non political organisations, and their actions are all within the principles of rule of law. I am wondering what would happen if an opposition MP invited himself to a community event in a PA leased property that forbids his presence? Would the police be called in to take down the MP’s particular and record a statement from the MP?
Rule of law is good as it makes it very clear what the citizens can or cannot do. What is troubling is that many of these rules and laws are private and not known to the public and many innocent people with no intent to break these rules of private authorities will be caught unguarded. Perhaps organizations like the transport authority could publish all the forbidden rules in the media to help the public to avoid violating their rules and laws. And all organizations with their private rules and laws should also do so.
I will stay indoor for the next 6 months until all the private authorities publish their rules and laws affecting the public. Then only will I feel safe to step out of my flat. And definitely I will not dare to take photographs of public transport vehicles and their activities. Maybe I should hang up my camera for good. I am a law abiding citizen and will obey all laws as long as they are laws. If the karang guni man has his own laws, I will also make sure not to infringe them. Life can be quite scary in a country run by the rule of law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)