2 member GRCs

I would like to take up Shriniwas Rai's suggestion of having 2 member GRCs. I think this is getting more relevant if we look at the composition of the population. We have two main minority groups and a growing foreign talent group. The 3 together will probably make up 50% of the population. And to give every group proportional representation, we should convert all GRCs to 2 member GRCs with one member from the majority group and one from either of these 3 groups. Oh, not to miss out on our Eurasian group, they can be included as the fourth member. So the new composition of GRCs should be one Chinese and one Indian/Malay/FT/Eurasian. The FT can be Indian, Chinese or any foreigner turned Singaporean. That should be a good thing to make sure that all groups are equally represented in Parliament. How's that?

God's Scheme of Things

Chin Sau Ho, Director from the Ministry of Finance, wrote a detailed reply to Conrad Raj's call for the govt to step in to help Singaporeans cope with higher inflation. Chin Sau Ho's point is that the govt is doing a lot to help the Singaporeans, including those in 4 rm and 5 rm flats through several kinds of handouts. And thanks to the GST for making this possible. With GST, the govt's approach is thus more targetted and effective except for those who are still left out of the loop. That is exactly why Vivian wanted the people's help to help him to reach out to those who did not get help. Nothing can beat God's Scheme of Things. It is the best solution from our earthly gods. GST is the best.

Taunting the opposition

Taunting the opposition or opposition taunting the ruling party should be part and parcel of politics. The slight difference here is that it is a one way thing, with the ruling party taunting the opposition and the other side completely quiet. They were challenged to come out with alternative policies, with better candidates, with more voices to speak out for the people etc etc. What did we hear from the opposition camp? Did we hear any replies or rebuttals? Nay. Did the opposition reply and were not reported in TOM? Or did the opposition really gone speechless? What is the use of a speechless opposition? It simply cannot be as the opposition should be seen and heard to represent the people's interest. They must be seen to do it all the time, not seasonal or cyclical. Or is there something more sinister that we don't know? The impression I am getting is that they may be hanged by their balls. And trying to make too much noise will only lead to a tightening of the tension and increasing the pain level. So it is better to keep quiet and all peace on the western front. It is just a perception and I may be totally wrong, and the opposition could be adopting a different kind of strategy which they are keeping to themselves. Whatever strategies, the people are watching and would want the opposition to stand up and be heard. It is unbecoming for a opposition to be on a silent mode.

Homogenous constituencies

Our constituencies are by design, or by a stroke of nature, very consistent in their composition. The racial groups represented are similar, the rich and poor are similar and the number of people voting for the ruling party and opposition parties are also similar. The 66.6% for the ruling party and 33.4% for the opposition parties would be the norm across all constituencies. Now, under this kind of distribution, the ruling party is more or less assured of being elected. But would it throw out a strong opposition party? For 33.4%, never! In a democratice system, one can only be elected by a simple majority. 49% also will not be represented. Maybe we need to tweak the system to allow the 33.4% some representation in Parliament. Otherwise, because of the homogeneity of our constituencies, they will forever be left out.

The Big IF

What if Anwar is a victim of a political conspiracy to keep him out of politics? If this is the case, what can the Malaysians make out of their political leadership and all those in power, including the police and judiciary who are all out to get him? Has Malaysia degenerated to such an unhealthy state of affair when leaders of the country could stoop so low, devoid of all human decencies, ethics and moral conduct, to destroy a fellow man just to keep themselves in power? If this is the case, what kind of country has Malaysia become? And what should the people do when the leadership is totally immoral and has no moral authority to lead? The big IF, is that if what is happening is really so shamelessly ruthless. And the leadership still walks around like upright and honest men and pointing an accusing finger at an innocent man. This is the big IF. Any country that has gone down to this level is no longer a country but a hell hole. What is the truth in Malaysia?