Our political system, accommodative or hostile?

9 candidates will stand for the Indonesian Presidential election. We can't find even one willing to stand unless the ruling party nominates him. And the restrictive rule that one must be an elite before one can even qualify further removes a large number of good candidates. The Indonesian do have their rules governing eligibility, like being a member of a political party and with a 15% representation in Parliament. Another built in barrier favouring the ruling party. What is important is that there is no dearth of qualified and respectable candidates offering themselves to the people. In our case, even without the elitist ruling, not many will want to stand. Some misfits may stand up. But we cannot simply dismiss the intelligence of the people to vote for a freak. Let's have more trust in a people that is well educated, well informed and good enough to be comparable to a first world country. And Chok Tong was talking about tweaking the system to make it more relevant. The question is that why is the current system unable to throw up more good people in politics and the presidency? Is the system accommodative or seen as hostile to political participation? Obviously the latter, given the lack of participation and only participates when invited. If the system is allowed to continue without any serious changes, what will happen is that no good people will want to come out voluntarily. And those who come out will join the opposition and probability have a kind of attitude that the ruling party fears most. A recklessness or do or die attitude, bring down the system before the system brings them down. The divide will grow and becomes irreconcilable. And things will naturally gets more vicious and unrestrained, for the good of neither side. We are seeing this happening. Why would good and decent people want to get involve in politics when their little indiscretion could suddenly be a national issue? Things like putting a ball point pen from the office in his bag and use to sign his personal cheques as well. Or his little relaxation in a spa in Bintan suddenly floated in the rumour mill. Or worst things could even happen. Chok Tong talked about a system that would throw up good leaders in both the ruling party and the opposition. Is our system doing that? Looking at the opposition camp, we know that it is definitely not. Looking at the ruling party, it is apparent that they are scrapping at the bottom of the barrel. Other than the key appointment holders, let's face it, ...I shall save my comments as they are not very flattering. We need a system that promotes healthy participation from good people in politics. We need to accept and listen to alternative views and grow with them. There seems to be some changes in this line of thought in the ruling party, with more conciliatory messages for a better opposition. Would it turn into a reality or just a red herring? Under the present system and political climate, it is near impossible to have good people forming their own political parties to provide a decent alternative to the ruling party. They won't. The rules of the game is stacked against one side and the price for participation can be untold misery, when the opposition becomes a real potential to win an election. No one knows what will come out when the gloves are off. Can we really move forward and evolve into something healthier?

Instant baby solution

Why is the govt struggling with the baby problem? Our baby growth rate may be lower, but why is there a need for more babies? We are not producing enough babies to keep the pyramid game going? Or is it that we are still chasing the 6.5 mil target? More incentives and more money will be considered to make parents start to reproduce again. The question is, reproduce for what? To keep the economy going, to keep the social and family structure viable? To keep the main core of the population local Singaporeans? Having more babies should not be just a simple case of economic consideration. It used to be a natural thing, get married and keep mating and producing babies. Today, having babies bring along a life long series of problems of maintenance and making sure that the babies are going to get a reasonable life when they grow up. The rich have accumulated wealth, bought houses in advance, to make sure that their progeny will have a comfortable life. What about the poor who are struggling to even feed themselves? Is it responsible to ask them to go ahead and produce recklessly without much thought of their children's well being? Many from the lower income homes will grow up handicap, unable to compete with the more materially well endowed children. Many will start life with a ball chained to their legs. Is this a good thing, producing cannon fodders? What about a promising future, a brighter future of hope and happiness? Many at the lower rungs of society will only continue to perpetuate their pathetic life of deprivation by bringing more children into this competitive and highly stressed country. It is very difficult for them to break free from the poverty trap they are in. If they so choose to have a couple of children, that is a choice that they have made for themselves in their given circumstances. But to push that choice into a non thinking quest just to produce more cogs for the economy, that may be quite tragic. We have done it for many years. Instant trees, instant population, and why not instant babies? Are we having second thoughts on the consequences of having instant babies that may lead to more instant problems when they grow up? Would such questions be unnecessary as we claimed that we are all migrants and having more migrants is only a natural thing, a good thing? We can have a more migrant and vibrant people in the future. And they shall be the new Singaporeans and they shall decide what kind of Singapore they want. No need to sweat the small stuff and coming out with more and more costly options. We have created a system that technically is fair to all but in reality put those in the lower income group in a very disadvantageous position. Why are we making things so hard, so expensive to raise a family by pushing up cost of living without a second thought of how it will impact the people and change their lives and expectations? Did someone say we create our own problems only to find superficial solutions for them?

Singaporeans are doing well

Despite the high inflation rate and prices of everything going up, Singaporeans are coping excellently without govt assistance. All they did was to tighten their belts a little, apply food substitution theory for cheaper products and kpkb to let go some steam. Then life goes on as normal. Actually Singaporeans were hit more with the introduction of more ERPs and higher tolls to pay. They took it in their strides. No problem at all. This is the strength and depth of Singaporean wealth and healthy income. And the workers would not be expecting much of a wage increase to compensate for the rising prices. Singaporeans should be proud of themselves to be living in the 5th most expensive city in Asia and 13th in the world, and doing fine.

More than US$10 billion in losses

"Temasek Selling Merrill Lynch Half or total of 87m shares have been sold off at a loss, according to US recorded filings. By Seah Chiang Nee Jul 24, 2008 Temasek Holdings has sold off half its ill-timed investment in Merrill Lynch - or about 87m shares, according to a mutual funds report on institutional trades on US stocks. The online report, MFFAIRS (Mutual Fund Facts About Individual Stocks), reported it sold off 86,949,594 shares (50%), leaving a current holdings of 86,949,594 shares (50%), according to the filings made public.... At that price Temasek would have suffered a loss of $17 a share - or a total loss of about US$1.48b for the 87mil shares.... Huge paper losses The disposal leaves Temasek Holdings and the Government Investment Corporation (GIC) still holding substantial parts of big troubled Western banks. Its remaining investments in UBS (Switzerland), Citigroup, Barclays and Merrill Lynch - at an original cost of US$21.88b - have declined on by some 47 percent in value. That is a paper loss of US$10.28b. However, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had said these investments were made as a long-term strategy of 30 years...." The above was extracted from www.littlespeck.com Murphy's Law working? Things that can go wrong will go wrong? When I first posted on the acquisition of these top international banks, I was a little optimistic that this was a god sent golden opportunity to be a big player in the internation financial market. I was also expecting that enough groundworks were put into it and the risk factor of this turning bad has been factored in. And should the investment becomes a bad deal, the losses are limited and we are protected from digging a big hole for our reserves. I am feeling very depressed now. It was a huge investment, an opportunistic one as someone has called it, but betting with such a big sum of money cannot be taken lightly. Didn't the financial experts cover their arses just in case it goes like what we are seeing? In stocks we always talk of trading in short term but often we are caught and short term trading turns out to be a bad long term investment that could eventually melt away. This is going to be a really long term investment now.

TOM is flawless

News reporting by the TOM is as flawless as you can get. They have been impeccable in their reports on govt policies, what political leaders said, or on national issues. It is tough to find them being critical or taking a dissecting knife to cut them to pieces to show just a little flaw. Generally, everything is flawless. I am not sure about reporting on other issues or on alternative parties and their members. But glancing through some of the criticisms in cyberspace recently, I think TOM must be good at critical analyses that naturally will incur the wrath of netizens. The drawback of a flawless TOM is that the flaws will be left to the netizens to expose and report on. And netizens are never kind in writing about things they are unhappy about. The division of roles will continue. The more flawless one side is being painted, the more flaws will be repainted in cyberspace.