between disorder and an orderly paradise

Singaporeans will be going to the polls to elect a new govt to rule over them. What are the choices available for to the Singaporeans? And are there good choices or is it between the devil and the deep blue sea? On one corner of the arena is a bunch of third world parties. All have not won a general election. A bit ruffle, don't look so professional, did not have the services of PR agencies to have them to dress and groom to look good, and fighting for anything that appears in the horizon. They do not forsee themselves as the govt for a long time to come as the number of candidates willing to stand, and good candidates, are still very small. So they will contend to check on the ruling party as their main function. On the other corner is a well managed political machine with all the resources to outdo the pretender for political office. They have all the track records of economic achievements and the expertise to manage the country and all the big organisations for profits. And they are unashamingly telling the people that they can expect more goodies, more jobs and security but more rules and restrictions on their freedom of expression. Their thinking is that with economic prosperity, the people do not need or want freedom of speech, human rights or related things which are superficial and superfluous. And from the way the people is behaving, it seems that the ruling party's reading of what the people really want is correct. The people are just so happy with the situation they are in and are contented to be apolitical and apathetic to whoever is running the country. The people will just go to vote on polling day to endorse the spectacular records of the ruling party and vote it to power with a bigger mandate. And this is going to happen on polling day. Actually my earlier above description of between the devil and deep blue sea is errorneous. It is between disorder and an orderly paradise.

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.