en bloc angst

This en bloc rule seems to be getting quite a hearing as more minority flat owners are affected. Apparently the majority have been dictating and imposing their goodness to the minority and getting away with it. Now what is the fuss when the minority are also having a beneficiary to it? They should be very thankful to the majority for carving out a deal which they would not be able to get on their own. I say, the minority should just live with the deal and should not be the stumbling block to progress and development. And the minority should not hold the majority at ransom just because one or two wanted a little more. It is just the rule of the game and everyone should play by the rule. In the name of progress and democracy, the en bloc ruling is a good thing and should be upheld until a better or more briliant formula is available.

of people or sheep

I share the views of Nurul Aziah Hussin in her letter to the Straits Times today titled 'Encourage ownership of national issues.' I quote, 'Public response to issues such as the recent debate on the ministerial pay hike, is more than an expression of "emotion" - it is the expression of citizens taking ownership of these issues, and asing our Govt to rise to the challenge of accountability and justification beyond performance legitimacy.' Basically what she said is that the people must change gear, move up, play a bigger role, take more interest in national affairs. If the people are just sheep, contend to grazing their little patches of grass and oblivious to all things around them, then what good are we as a nation...of sheep?

Power relationship between the ruler and the being ruled

In a totalitarian, authoritarian or dictatorial system, the power relationship is very simple. The ruler has absolute power and owns everything, including power of course. And they act in such a way that power will be theirs forever. This in many instances lead to the wielding of power without any restraint, and abuses are unavoidable. But the rulers have no fear as the ruled are unlikely to do anything, nor can they do anything to the rulers. Unfortunately, history has proven that this is not true as in the case of Saddam Hussein and his family. Also happened in ASEAN countries. But during the reign of these rulers, the ruled will accept whatever that they have to take. It was a defeatist attitude, a hopeless situation. The sheep and the shepherd. The people were owned by the rulers and their lives were meaningless except just to exist, but at the mercy of the rulers. In the western democracy model, the US and Europe, the rulers understand that their power is temporal, transcient. They are elected only for a number of terms. And it is only a matter of time before they become common folks, walking side by side with the people in the market or laughing together in the football stadium. Such rulers tend to be less dismissive and arrogant. For they will fall flat on their face when power is not there. And the people knew the formula. So the people are freer in their thoughts. They speak up when they need to. They need not fear that the rulers will fix them up nicely. And if the rulers do that, they have ways to answer back. Perhaps this is the strength of the western model, when power is not perpetuated as if it will always be there and those who assumed power can do what they want. The probability of abuses is that much lower as all good things will come to an end very rapidly. Where are we? Why did so many people that I talked to, even my friends, all have this undisclosed fear? Didn't they know that the bugger could be his kampong kid or the boy in the next HDB flat, but once in power, he becomes something different, someone to fear? Would they feel the same if they know that the bugger will in a matter of time become being ruled rather than the ruler?

myth 134

Intelligence not linked to wealth I can't help but to quote this amazing truth that was confirmed by a US study. "People don't become rich because they are smart.' Jay Zagorsky, a research scientist at Ohio State University. He added that IQ has really no relationship to a person's wealth. So for those who wanted to acquire more wealth to prove that they are smart, or afraid that they will look stupid to the stupid guy who is richer than them because of money, have no fear. If you are smart, you are smart. If you are stupid you are stupid. And for those who still want to pursue more wealth to look smart, then it is a case of plain stupidity. But if you can, you should grab more. Nothing wrong with having more money even if one is stupid. Hope this will take away some pressure for some people: )

En bloc Rules

Why are people crying foul of the en bloc rulings? In a democracy or democratic system where the majority rules, this is what it should be or must be. The majority, even if 51%, assumes all the power of the rest. And this en bloc ruling is even more stringent, demanding that 80% majority only can the group impose their wills on the 20% who disagree. Yes, the 80% can sell off your property against your will. And that is what the minority must accept. This is the beauty of a democratic system. I think when the rules were first mooted, it was a way to prevent a small unreasonable minority from going against the good sense of the majority. Now the table is turned against the minority by the tyranny of the majority. They knew that the law is on their side and they just lumped it to the minority. And they even ignored the minority completely by not informing them. I am impressed with such intelligent people. Play by the rule and take full advantage of the rule that favours you.