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?

first world govt, first world people

A first world govt must be accompanied by a first world population. It would be strange for a first world govt leading a third world people. What is a first world people? Using the same criteria of qualifications and money, I think many Singaporeans are first world people. Many live in expensive landed properties, driving expensive cars and travelling around the world is a way of life. And many also went to the best universities and have first class honours and earned hundreds or millions of dollars. Indeed Singaporeans belong to the first world and befitted to be ruled by a first world govt. They both come hand in hand. They deserve each other. What about those Singaporeans who don't fit the above descriptions? Don't worry. With a first world govt, these Singaporeans will soon be first world citizens. The nation will stay together and move ahead together. That is what a first world country with a first world govt will eventually be. And the people will also enjoy the lifestyle of a first world country.

first world govt

What is a first world govt? It is easy to brush aside a third world govt as it is simply regarded as third grade, unworthy and basically no good. But what is first world govt? Is the US or UK govt a first world govt, or the European and Japanese govt a first world govt? Superficially they are or should be as their countries are regarded as first world countries. So govt of first world countries must be first world govt. When the question of first world govt is raised, it implies something more. It suggests that being in the first world does not mean that one is a first world kind of people. So does the govt. How can one define what is a first world govt? The academics will definitely have a whole list of criteria to apply to their formula. But for the layman, a simple and easily recognisable definition should suffice. Lets use something quantifiable. Lets use the all familiar criteria of money and perhaps qualifications. Everyone is free to disagree with this formula. It is used here for convenience. In a way, our govt is first world when qualifications is concerned. Our govt is an elected govt and I would consider only the elected representatives. So it is a limited definition. All these people now in govt are not only people with tertiary education, but from the best universities around the world, and scoring first class honours too. Unlike those who went to Yale but with an average grade. So academically our govt must be first world. The other criteria is money. In terms of income, our govt must also be indisputably first world as they are all high earners, easily half a million a year each, matching or exceeding those in the first world countries. And this is not their real worth. Everyone of them actually worth more. They are hotshots that will readily be grabbed by MNCs and paid more, much more than what they are currently getting. We are so lucky that they volunteered and accepted public office and getting a discount in their income. And their lifestyle must definitely be first world too. With all the loose change to see the world, driving the finest cars in the most expensive car market, living in the most expensive homes and a life of plenty. I conclude that indeed we have a first world govt. I am not looking at the intangibles or things that are unquantifiable. Those will be easily questioned and are very subjectives. One can argue till the cow comes home about how good is decision making, the morality, the values, the compassion, how the people's life are affected. These are very cumbersome things to discuss in a forum like this. Yes, we have a first world govt.

two picks of the hdb cherry

I just read an article in the New Paper about the plight of a divorced woman and her three grown up children. She had owned two HDB flats and sold them for a profit and now squatting in her mother's one room rental flat. She is not allowed to buy another subsidised HDB flat, which is obvious. Everyone knows about this rule. But then it was reported that she could not even buy a resale HDB flat where the element of subsidy is no longer an issue. And she cannot squat in her mother's place because she is taking advantage of the system. Her income does not qualify her for a rental flat, so cannot also squat in another rental flat belonging to her mother. Now what's the issue? There were two reasons given for why she is not allowed to buy a resale HDB flat. One is because of her previous ownership of two HDB flats. The other is that her income is not sufficient for her to buy/afford one. Now, which is the real reason? Her unsound financial position or her ownership of HDB flats? If it is the latter it is very puzzling. When buying a resale flat, there is no issue of subsidy. Why then can't a citizen buy and sell a resale flat as often as he needs to? I thought the two cherry principle applies to only subsidised flats. But if this is true, then many HDB flat owners will only be allowed to live in two HDB flats in their life time, resale or subsidised. But if it is the reason of financing, she has 3 children, and their combined income may be sufficient to buy a smaller 2 room flats. From her sales of two HDB flats and with profits, the CPF part of the proceeds must have gone back to CPF with interests. Strange that this is still not enough for a small HDB flat. Then the issue of squatting with her mother in a rental flat. And because of that she is deemed to deprive others of the privilege of a rental flat. How? I am still scratching my head. Why can't daughter and grandchildren squeezed into the mother's flat if they are prepared for the inconvenience? Fostering familial ties, living together in a 3 tier family? The biggest puzzle or problem, cannot buy HDB flat, insufficient income. Cannot stay in rental flat of mother, not registered as a tenant and income not eligible to rent another flat. With all the disqualifications, nowhere else to go. They are now allowed to squat with the mother temporarily and must vacate soon. This is the efficient application and administration of rules in Singapore. All the rules and regulations covered. Now the problem is with her. It is a private problem and not the problem of HDB. And the paper asked the question, 'Did she created her own problem?' Even if she did, so, throw her into the streets? Would anyone want to offer her a solution? How could she beat the system and get a roof over her head, and her children's head?