soo khoon bangging the kangaroos

i am not sure if tan soo khoon is in the sia board, but so far he is the only mp to speak up against the aussies. we have been cut off because of protectionism. the mightly australian is shivering at the sight of sia. i hope the barrier was raised throught genuine fear that the qantas is incompetent and unable to fight against the giant of sia. what a grandiose thought from a little red dot. but the aussies have never been known to be competitive anyway, with the unions tying a knot around the management. but then this rejection of sia, could it be linked to what howard had warned after the hanging of the australian national hero, the drug trafficker, that they will do something as a result of their displeasure? let's hope the aussies will not stoop that low. again the protection of qantas is unacceptable when free trade and open sky policies are what western democracies have been harping about. shall we send our warships to open up australia? just joking. don't be serious on this. maybe an organised demo outside australian embassy will be a good show. we deserve something after helping to grease their way into asean.

are we becoming a police state?

there is a big article in the straits times on youth loitering after 11pm. and loitering after this hour is a no, according to the police definition. these youths were found either drinking or chit chatting or some even attempting mischief. on first thought, all youth should be tucked in bed by this hour. or they should be mugging their books. no reason to be wasting their time outside or being tempted to try the unacceptable. yes, these youth must be controlled and sent home. now, by who? who is responsible for their nocturnal activities? what if the parents allowed them to do so? some may not and did not know. do we want all our children to be in bed by 11pm? is it wrong, if parents allowed it, for children to hang out after 11pm? now what's wrong with that? what's wrong with a city that does not sleep? do we really need the police to go about rounding up children and packing them home? are we afraid of the children's safety or the safety of others at the hands of these children? there are bound to be some who are up to no good. guilty till proven innocent or innocent till proven guilty? if the police shall go around checking on children, would it amount to guilty till proven innocent? or does it mean that loitering around after 11pm is a violation of some sort? and the police is in the thick of things. i have a very funny feeling about this.

workfare bonus: different views

some pap mps were concerned about the expectation of the bonus by the people. opposition mps were against it as an election gimmick. so don't have workfare bonus! uh huh. there are always different ways of looking at it. understandable for opposition to whack it as another form of pork barrel politics. understandable for mps to raise concerns that people will expect more of it in the future. but whatever, it is the people's money. it is profit from investing the people's money. and there is no better way than to return them to the people, and make the people feel that they are part owner of the nation's wealth. what other nonsensible ways to dispose of the money? pay big fat bonuses to the managers of the nation's reserve? give away to foreign talents like mercenary footballers? splash them to make beautiful parks or landscapes, pay more to political leaders, give the presidency another perk? or what? there are many ways to waste the money. it is sinful to just keep the money and not benefitting the people. it is all how to explain and package it. the best way is to link it as returns from investment and treat every citizen as a shareholder of the nation's reserve. and to return to the shareholders when there is a surplus. have a transparent formula so that people know what to expect. and don't do away with it because mps are very rich and don't need the money. the people, many of them, need every cent that they can lay their hands on. ok, rich mps, please back off.

lky welcomes good opposition

the mood seems to have changed. the tone set by lky and his message to chiam and low to put up good men to contest came out quite genuine. gather some good men and win a grc, serve well and pave the way for more opposition members in parliament. this is a welcome change. but how many good men will take the bite? how many will brave the possibilities of being ridiculed for the smallest demeanour in their lives? how many have not pee along the roadside in their younger days? how many have not climbed the fence to steal a few rambutans? how many have not taken a few pieces of papers from the office for their private use? how many have not called their wives or girlfriends using office phone and time? everyone is human and erred in some ways, or being playful or mischievious at times, smell the wild flowers, paint the town red. but if coming out to stand for public office means having their laundries hanged up for public scrutiny, then not many good men will come forward. only a few monks and priests will deem themselves worthy enough to stand. or those who know they will not be exposed by being in the right camp will have the cheek to stand. and walk around like saints. unless such stigma of running down potential candidates are no longer in the cards, many good and decent men, who have strayed a little, will not offer themselves to serve. and we will have those who have nothing to lose to come out screaming and fighting. politics is a dirty game but need not be made too dirty.

demographic swing or change

the electoral register saw an increase of 45,000 voters over the last 5 years, giving a net increase of only 9,000 a year. assuming a birth rate of 30,000 in the corresponding period, it means 21,000 have left. and if one is to include the new citizens, maybe more have left, after netting off death. what does this mean to singapore? are we really becoming a hotel for foreigners? would we reach a stage when foreigners, including prs, outnumber citizens? maybe it has already happened. and if the citizens become a clear minority, i think we are in for trouble. why this demographic shift? why are people leaving for greener pasture? why being the best in everything did not attract our people to stay but to leave? when people vote with their feet, no amount of explanation can say otherwise. the negative factors are stronger than the positive. so is there any reason to crow about how good we are? the pattern of flow is serious in the sense that the able middle class are moving out. the leftovers will be the heartlanders and a few super rich. so we have those who either cannot leave or the small minorities who are so comfortable that they would not leave. why? are our policies that difficult for citizens to find living here bearable? the general perception is that our policies are more in favour of non citizens, prs and guests but very unfavourable to our own citizens. what we need is positive discrimination to favour citizens. $2.6 billion is pi sai to the people, a light drizzle. the expensive education system, the expensive healthcare, housing etc are basic things that make life untenable to many. those who think, will know how expensive it is to bring up a child through university education. and they must make sure they have a hoard of savings to pay their hospital bills. and housing will tie up all their little spare cash. for the few rich, no problem. the answer to the woes of the citizens is in the people living. these statistics cannot lie. no amount of explanation can hide this fact.