general election : tanjong pagar is the weakest grc

in my opinion tanjong pagar is the weakest grc in this election. though lky is the stalwart and the grand old man in the constituency, his strength is now his weakness. the older generation of voters are now either gone or disinterested. too old to be bothered. the younger generation is a totally different game. no care for old senior politicians. their perspective is totally unfathomable from the old mindset. koh boonwan may be a good support to carry the constituency. but the nkf will do him in. and his strength could not balance off the negative weight of lky in the constituency. everyone would like to see lky as the president to guard the national asset, not as another mp. his role as minister mentor? well, this is seen in many ways. the pap may think it is a good thing. but will the people think so? i think if i gather a good team i should be able to win tanjong pagar today. haha, what a dream! but i think if the opposition put up a good team and fight tanjong pagar on the merits and achievements of lky and retire him, they will have a lot of listening ears. never fight tanjong pagar to discredit lky. fight tanjong pagar with the good deeds of lky and win. what a contradiction! what a paradox!

general election : prelim round 3

the response by sylvia lim to pap's attack is very sensible and reasonable. and she puts it across in a very pleasant manner. i think all politicians shall learn from her on how to communicate gentlemanly or lady like, with respect and courtesy to the other party. nothing condescending or intimidating. her defence is also very tactical. let pap sets the agenda. but wp will also set its own agenda. this is like the calling by some quarters that elite schools must play football, a game which they have conceded as not their strength, as the game is their strength. the elite school shall play whatever games they are strong in and choose to play. so in politics, same method. you hit me at my weak points. i siam and hit you at your weak points too. not that i cannot engage in a full discussion. i choose my battle ground, my time and what to fight and my agenda. so it is likely that pap will be shouting about poisons and time bombs and the opposition too will be shouting the same thing but of different nature and characteristics. i don't have to play football if i am not good in it. the show is warming up.

now i know why singapore is a racist country

one forumer wrote to the straits times relating how he was accused of being a racist in singapore. he is a chinese belonging to the majority. he told one guy to stop smoking in a queue for taxi. instead of snubbing out the cigarette the smoker, who was a minority, shouted at him that he was a racist for telling him to stop smoking in the queue because of his race. in another incident he shouted at a cyclist to prevent him from hitting a pedestrian. he was accosted as a racist for shouting at the guy because he was a minority. our fragile race relations can be easily torned to pieces, not by the majority bullying the minority but by the minority bullying the majority. and it is so easy to call the majority racist. what would happen if the snatching of body incident in malaysia is reenacted here and involved the majority against a minority? hell will break lose.

general election : preliminary round 2

the wp's manifesto is perceived as poison, timebombs. wp responded by shouting undemocratic. what are the issues and why? wp sees the grassroot organisations as a political tool and wanted them remove. this includes the grcs and the presidency as well. the pap counters by saying that wp is trying to undermine social cohesion. who is right or telling the truth. both are right from their perspectives. no one can believe that wp would want to create racial strife. they are just calling for the removal of organisations that would give them a disadvantage in the political contest. but pap chooses to see it differently and call it differently. the counter blow of calling pap undemocratic is in response to the call/advice or demand by pap to change wp's manifesto. to pap, it is just an election tactic. they talked down to the wp like a school master. you change or else. this puts wp in a dilemma. they cannot change for doing so will immediately be recognised as a defeat. not changing will put them in a position like they are threatening national unity or worst. is wp's defence on the ground of undemocratic justifiable? can a communist party put up a manifesto for communism be allowed to contest? or can a socialist party put up a manifesto that resembles communism be unconstitutional? or can any party put up any manifesto and be disqualified to contest? who is the final arbiter to say whether the manifesto is acceptable to the people?

the road to mediocrity

for many years we have been relentless in the pursuit of excellence. that is the drive that pushes this little pimple ahead of many countries. today it seems that this zeal to excel is seen as wrong. the champions must not be champions. the road is too tough. slow down, compromise, take the easy way out. or try not to work so hard, play more. this kind of mentality is best seen in khoo swee chiow's personal quest. the mount everest climb. no body would argue, is a tall order. then the antartic etc. but when he dipped inside a bath tub, that was very disturbing. is singapore heading in the same direction? the next national goal shall be 'fly the biggest kite.' not try to outdo bill gate or be an einstein. at least we get mentioned in the guinness book of records. on the other hand the poor country called china is producing nobel prize winners. all their students in our local universities are tops in their cohorts and are 100% nerds. no time to play or even leave their dormitories. maybe this is a bad thing in singapore. we have arrived and can afford to go slow. it is all a matter of choice and personal sacrifices. you want to be good in anything, you pay the price to be good. you want to be mediocre, you pay the price to be mediocre. if one chooses to be a jack of all trades, and be happy with it, good. if one chooses to be a champion gymnast and start to train at 3 and ended up stunted in growth, that is a decision to be made. why complain about individual choices? just because some people wanted to play football and enjoy themselves others must also be forced to play ball with him?