education: listen, ask, think and speak

the formal school education can be broken down into 4 phases. the first is when the children are absorbing knowledge which requires them to listen a lot. with a little knowledge, with their curiosity stirred, they will start to ask questions. both phases are complementary in acquiring and building up knowledge and information. the next phase is processing, the thinking phase. children at high school level are expected to start to think for themselves, think about what they have been taught and form their ideas and find their own truths. the final phase is when they are expected to stand up and take their positions about things, issues etc. this is the maturing phase when they must confidently say this is what i think, what i think is right, what i want things to be. transfer these four phases into parliament, and we at best are only seeing the second phase in play. parliament is still in an infant, only asking questions with very little input, very little thinking and very few taking a stand to say their piece. only rarely would an mp stand up and say this is not right, not good for the people. this is what should be done, what the people want, what is good for the people. the history of parliament is 40 years. and we are not seeing any sign of a breaking away from this asking mode. mps think that they have executed their duties if they ask questions. and they are very happy with that. when will mps take a stand for their views on things? or is this the weakness of having mps from only the ruling party who are not expected to take different stand, and thus unable to speak up for the people? and unfortunately, opposition parties too think that their role is just to ask question. they have learnt the wrong thing i suppose. shouldn't they be speaking up and say this is what we think the people want or is good for the people?

ge round 9: opposition muted

we have heard several rounds of salvos from the pap but practically nothing from the opposition. they could have been very busy mapping out their strategies and the avoidance of a 3 corner fight. there is also this view that they are keeping their cards close to their chest, like what steve chia said. what we hope is that when they start firing, they would not resort to any wild and unfair allegations. let the pap set the tone. so far the pap are banging on their comparative advantage of being the incumbent, the ruling party and with their huge resources to comb the ground. and they are trying to pin the image of a opposition that appears only during election. the second point about sincerity of the opposition is very subjective and can also be asked in their direction. we will have to wait to see how the opposition take their stand.

attacking thaksin developing into attacking singapore

the strongest anti singapore attack came from a prof phuwado songprasert of kasetsart university. he led the attack on singapore/temasek's investments in thailand as if singapore is out to manipulate thai politics, and the politics of asean. such is the possibility of how some groups of anti singapore activists in other countries could do to achieve their private agenda. like it or not, there are always such elements who for whatever reasons, will attack singapore given an opportunity. we have friends, but also enemies hiding in little corners. phuwado even asserted that singaporean investors were disliked in malaysia and indonesia, trying to inflame more hatred towards singaporeans as if it is a norm. if the demonstration does not end swiftly, there is always a high probability that singapore will end up as a dart board. and all the goodwill developed will go to waste and we have to start all over again. we have counted on other countries that could be riled by the slightest reasons, but not thailand. a land of smiles and lesser historical baggages. and so far no one in thailand is trying to douse this flame and incense. would all these turn into a popular backlash against singapore, with demonstrators stoning or storming our embassy and investments? the potential for volatility is always there, and waiting to be fanned into a firestorm.

chua lee hoong, chua mui hoong, related?

i quoted chua lee hoong a few days back on the dignity of politics in the past. today chua mui hoong is questioning the cynicism in the redrawing of political boundaries. often i must say that i mistook one from the other. both political editors in the straits times. and both are quite similar in their perceptions and analysis of local politics. are they sisters, or twins?

warren buffett punching again

the excesses of the american corporate world, which is widely repeated here, is getting another punch from warren buffett. the craziness in the pay to ceos has gone on for too long. it is daylight robbery against the interest of shareholders. ceos are paying themselves ridiculous salaries without producing the results. and the rationale is that other ceos are getting them, so they shall have it too. many public companies would have been profitable or have bigger profits if not because of the ethereal compensation packages paid to ceos. so far, buffett has been the lone voice in the wilderness. no one is going to hear him as everyone is having a party and enjoying it. and there are many companies that made hefty losses of several hundred millions over the years. but all it needs is for one year to make a 20 or 30 million profits and the ceos will be asking for blood, demanding big bonuses and bonus shares and increments. and the meagre profit multiply over 10 years may not even recover the losses incurred earlier. the shareholders must have a bigger voice to check the excesses of corporate ceos. and not be duped repeatedly, and be robbed of the value of their shares.