Hither the opposition parties?

A debate is now on as to the tweaking of the political system for a stronger opposition party to partner the ruling PAP in the govt. And how the system will turn out will be at the discretion,magnanimity and mercy of the party in power. They will tweak the system in a way it deems fit for the participation of the opposition parties. Will the opposition parties be consulted or will they have a say in the tweaking? Will the people be consulted as well? Why am I asking such obvious questions? The opposition parties have taken a very low presence lately. Wondering why? Have they lost their scripts or are they having a retreat to re strategise how they should play their roles to win support from the people? Or are there things that we do not know that is happening behind the scene that led to the disquiet? What I thought a good strategy for the opposition parties is to learn from the master. The Malaysians and Indonesians refused to learn from the master and have been left behind, gasping for air and heading no where. The opposition parties need not reinvent the wheel. Just learn from the master from organisation, strategies and tactics, including styles and purposes. Just do a little tweaking on the objectives. Both are working for the people and country. The only difference is the methodology and the priorities. The opposition parties should start with the setting up of a parallel mode of organisation structure, committees, sub committees, grassroot organisations, activities, just remember to exclude things like bicycle rides or joggings in the parks that may cause riotings. And organisations/committees or cells should include the official and unofficial, the known and the unknown, to gather support and information on the ground. But all these requires a lot of resources and manpower and the opposition can only do it in smaller scale or selectively. I think this will be a good start. With an equivalent organisation, no need a shadow cabinet yet, the field will be more level. Both can take on each other on similar terms, strategies and tactics.

Why no need for season tickets?

Season tickets have been in used for public transportation in many countries for years. The main objectives, other than convenience, include discounts for frequent users or for those whose use a lot of public transport. It will eat a little into the profits of the transport companies but it is also a way to reward loyal customers. In countries where there is real competition, season tickets also help to retain customers if the tickets are only for designated transport companies. Why is season tickets such a pain and not being offered to the Singaporean commuters? Why are the transport companies mulling over it for so long and could not see its advantages to the commuters, which, ok, means a little disadvantage to the companies in terms of discount and lesser profit? The last past must be the reason. Why should they give discount to commuters when there is no competition and no need to? The other reason which commuters forgot, is that most of the commuters are already purchasing season tickets by paying in advance in their EZlink cards. So the commuters are already paying season. What for give them discount when they are already doing it? The is the same principle that is applied in many areas. Our hospitalisation bills are being paid in advanced, used or not used, through Medisave accounts. Fat hope that the season tickets will be introduced. Oh I heard it is in the plan.

Unleashing the power of the people

In his Jakarta Presidential Lecture, Kishore Mahbubani talked about the lessons to be learnt from India and China. What make the resurgence of these two ancient civilisations at such a rapid pace? Both countries have enormous human resources and both these resources were trapped by feudal systems that enslaved them for centuries instead of liberating them. What move these two sleeping giants was the unleashing of the power of the people, all more than 1 billion each. Freeing the people's mind, educating them and unleashing them to develop to their fullest potential. The miracles that are happening in these two countries are there to be witnessed. While Singapore embarked on its revival by embracing foreign talents, the biggest pitfall is that it is continuing to entrap the minds and power of its own people. It simply tells its people not to think, not to get involved in the nation's affair. Shut up and move on. Make your money and keep quiet. Be grateful, be happy. Don't think, no need to think. The few super talent elite will do the thinking. Was there a change to these thinkings? Can Singapore really transform itself into a new height given these kinds of feudal mindset where obedient to authority, authoritarianism, is regarded as the epitome of a political system?

Change in the offing?

Chua Mui Hoong wrote about the possibility of change as hinted by Chok Tong. In her view there could be changes but under the ruling party's terms. The ruling party shall call the shot, decide who can play and set the rules. Is this not the case all this while? The govt, she said, which is actually the ruling party, shall be the controller, the game master and shall work out a system that is fair to all players. What kind of system, and how fair, would come out of it if the game master is also the key player with vested interest to remain as the main player? Sue Ann Chia also discussed about the hints of coming changes, probably bigger GRCs, bigger deposits, to ensure that the ruling party continues its dominant position but with more participation in the form of nominated MPs. The possibility of ever bigger GRCs, maybe lesser than 5, or maybe 1 or 2 cannot be ruled out. Such a change could totally rule out any opposition participation because of the extremely high cost in deposit money and their inability to gather enough respectable candidates. It will deal a death blow to the opposition and for all. This is similar to what Zhu Ge Liang did when he advised Xiang Yu, I think, to tie all his ships together to form an unsinkable platform. It was a formidable strategy, like All In in a poker game. The rest was history. Correction. Abao has given the correct names of the general and advisor. It was Cao Cao and Pang Tong. The moral of the story was the tying of the ships together and they all got burnt together.

Would Singapore head the Malaysia way?

The political developments in Malaysia is tearing the country apart. Every political leader now appears a suspect, questionable in action and motive, what they said and did are all taken with a big pinch of salt. In short, unreliable, untrustworthy and unbecoming. What is more serious is the persecution of Anwar with malicious charges. After his first episode in jail and being beaten, Anwar is facing similar charges and possibly similar endings. Would Singapore, down the road, see a high profile politician being persecuted and pursued by the 'law' relentless to make sure it stick? Would the fortune of some high profile politicians hang in the balance because of political participation and the need to get rid of them? The danger and possibility of such a scenario cannot be ruled out. A new power or personality appearing in the arena could decide to set his own terms and deal with who ever he wants the way he wants it. And with the changing of political fortunes, things can become very nasty, and may go the Malaysian way. Don't ever say no way. Don't be complacent. Do we have a system of checks and balance to avoid such a downfall?