Raise the political barrier

Vivian Balakrishnan had a lively discussion with 100 young activists and an impressive 10 questions were asked. Not bad for Singapore standard of active participation in a dialogue. 3 questions is standard and 10 is excellent in a depoliticised citizenry. The key issue raised was the need for a high standard of integrity among political aspirants. Vivian mused that 'many people are asking us to dumb down our political system. Lower the hurdles, lower the standards, lower the penalties, lower the deposits, so that we can have apparently more contest.' He added that he 'would rather have a high political hurdles, so that anybody who seriously enters the contest is a good, strong, honest person, willing to pay the prices and able to withstand the scrutiny of the public.' In one mouthful he has said that the govt will set the rules and standards for entering politics. A hard fact that the people must live with. The power of the day sings the song. Also, no one will take issues with maintaining high standards of conduct and integrity. These must be the basic qualities expected of national leaders. What is questionable is to link ability to pay a high deposit, or rich people, as people of high integrity, is unacceptable. There are many good people with very high integrity but do not have the money for deposit and were out of the system, cut off by the system. The next point is that these people of high integrity must be prepared to pay a high price. Why should entering politics be equated to paying a high price? Who is exacting this high price and under what circumstances? When we expect good people of high integrity to come into politics, the assumption is that they will conduct themselves exemplarily and would not behave like clowns or hit people below the belt. The issue of paying a high political price is unnecessary and is a threat that our system can do without. Not that people going into politics can destroy another with impunity. Unjustified and unsubstantiated attacks on any opponent must be paid with a high price. But this high price must not be there as a criteria or condition in our political system if we are to open the net wide enough to really get the good people into politics. Yes, it is dangerous to lower the criteria to enter politics. But a good political system must not have unjustified high barriers to keep good people out. A lot of money and high political price as a threat are something we can do without.

Night ERP charges

Not very long ago, if I can remember, control of road congestion is to free the roads to facilitate commercial activities. Our business and trading activities must not be curtailed by a clogged road and nothing moves. The CBD and Orchard Road gantries were set up to free the area from traffic jams. It is interesting to see the introduction of night ERP charges in CTE till 10.30 pm for home bound traffic. After 6pm, most of the commercial activities other than shopping, food and entertainment must have closed shop. And these are people going home or doing their social activities. The CTE may be slow, but it is leisure time. Why the need to activate the ERP charges? If this logic is allowed to get through, weekend and holiday ERP charges will soon be introduced as well. The activation of ERP charges will then be dependent on road congestion and nothing to do with the slowing down of commercial and business activities. Then come weekends or holidays, no chance of driving around freely. Pay to drive every where and on every day.

Pedra Branca, our island

Reading through several days of the reports in the msm on the Pedra Branca court battle in Hague, I am fully convinced that Malaysia's case was spurious. They were just grappling with straws to build their claim over the island. The msm has presented every aspect of Singapore's legitimate claim and every rebuttal or dismissal very convincingly. Reading the media, one wonders why Malaysia even bothers to take up the case and waste so much time and expenses to go to Hague. It is not only losing the case, but putting up a poor case will discredit themselves in the international platform. I kind of feel a bit embarrass at the supporting evidence and arguments put up by Malaysia. But all these are based on the reports in our msm. Malaysia's position was reported in bits and pieces, in an incoherent manner. Neither were there a decent coverage on how Malaysia rebut or dismiss our claims and positions. It would be interesting to read how Malaysia present its case in full and see if they really make out a good case for themselves. I will search the Malaysian msm for their version of the story. The other astounding impression is the comments made by the Singapore team. Their morale was high, they have made a good case, and they were cautiously confident, guarded and prepared for any surprises Malaysia may throw out. They went there to fight a 50:50 case and may lose. Hmmmm, I thought and have lived with Pedra Branca as an intrinsic part of our territorial integrity. It is ours, never in doubt, like ownership of a landed property. And if there is any spurious claims against it, my position would be quite different. I may present the case with all the legal documents. But at no time would I concede that it is a 50:50 case. I may even put in place some measures for damages and cost and make it very clear in all manners and conduct, that it is a wild claim and need to be dismissed with cost awarded to me. To take the position that it is 50:50 is already conceding that our ownership is also tentative.

Battle for the right to live here

The battle to live in this little paradise has started. At the higher end, the talented level, Singaporeans will have to compete with foreign talents for every inch of turf they want to step on. And they are going to lose. For the foreign talents are going to beat our local talents till their nose bleed. So the only alternative is to look for a jobs overseas, pack up the family and go. At the lower end, the softie Singaporeans are going to compete with the hungry and toughter foreign workers. And they will be bashed against the wall. No fight. The hawkers in food courts are being replaced gradually. The mei meis in spas, health centres and Geylang are also being evicted by more willing and aggressive foreigners. Soon, very soon, the new owners of Singapore will be all new citizens, not born locally. We cannnot compete. And sadly, that is a fact. The good news is that Singapore will prosper to greater height by the foreign talents, the new Singaporeans. And we may see Singaporean maids and workers overseas. Possible?

NUS and NTU ranking drop

The Times London Higher Education Supplement has ranked NUS and NTU at 33 and 69 respectively compared to 19 and 61 the previous year. This call for alarm. Our rankings have dropped! Though the reports still considered the two universities as world class, they are dropping and will drop out of the top 100 soon. Jialat. Actually, when looking at the criteria and how the rankings were done, it is a western biased and pseudo intellectual ranking that is as good as a straw poll from people on the streets. What is so great about being ranked high by using digits on number of foreign students or faculty staff or staff student ratio? What is important should be the quality of the staff, their academic achievements and also the quality of the students produced. What is the point of ranking as number one when the students are all but average?