Low Thia Kiang simplistic

Indranee Rajah said Low Thia Kiang was simplistic when the latter called for a stronger opposition to prevent and check a govt from becoming corrupt. The equally simplistic view is to believe that a strong govt will never be corrupt. Both views are equally simplistic without elaboration and qualification. By the way, what is the definition of corruption? Corrupt or not corrupt according to who? Yesterday in parliament I think most will agree that Low Thia Kiang was simplistic simply because when put to a vote, it is likely that there will be 82 MPs voting that it is so. So it is a numerical fact, a numerical truth. So a person can become simplistic in a situation when the majority point a finger at him and said, yes he is simplistic. The majority is right. Using the same logic, if we were to put it to a vote in cyberspace and the majority view will prevail, which view will be called simplistic? Low Thia Kiang's or Indranee Rajah's? Shall we have a vote on this? I think with the change that Chok Tong is calling for, maybe there will be less dismissive statements levelled at the opposition members. By being inclusive and willing to hear alternative views, maybe there will be more chances of opposition views being listened to and pondered over with without being brushed off immeidiately as superficial. Personally I don’t think Low Thia Kiang is being simplistic by making that remark. I think there is a lot of wisdom in his statement. Oh dear, now I will also be branded as another one with simplistic views. Pai seh man. Is our system beyond reproach for corruption? So far the most often spoken view in public is that our system is free of corruption. I am sure all Singaporeans will swear that this is the truth if they were asked to state their views. I too will swear that this is true. We should pat ourselves on our back to be able to tell the world that this is the pride of all Singaporeans. Would this view be changed some day?

How much did GIC lose?

The amount lost by Temasek, 31% or about $58 BILLION has been well reported. In Parliament yesterday, this amount was again confirmed, from S$185b to S$127b. How much did GIC lose? The figure quoted in Parliament was 25%. 25% of what? How much was GIC managing? S$100b, $200b or $500b? Presumably GIC was managing more than Temasek. At $200b, 25% is $50 BILLION. At $500b, 25% will be $125 BILLION. So what is the actual amount lost by GIC? The MPs were asking for more transparency. Will more be made known given the changing mindset towards a more transparent and more accountable system? The leader of the opposition, Inderjit Singh, was speaking in his usual role and supported by several MPs on this issue.

Where are the opposition MPs?

I watched the Parliament report on Channel 5 last night hoping to see Chiam See Tong or Low Thia Kiang speaking in Parliament. No clips on them and Sylvia Lim either. I saw a lot of Siew Kum Hong. But yesterday's Parliament appeared to be hosted by Amy Khor. She was everywhere. So the opposition MPs must all be sleeping. Then I turned on the ST today. Oh, Low Thia Kiang did make a pretty long speech. At least the ST was generous enough to offer him some space, but no picture still. Can Channel 5 be generous enough to give a little coverage to the opposition MPs? If not, if they are not seen, people may think that they are all sleeping.

Vote the LGBTs to Parliament

I was reading Yawning Bread and the author lamenting why the conservatives could not be persuaded by reasons and wanted their conservative way of life. I would like to suggest to the LGBTs to form a political party, get themselves into Parliament and amend the laws for a more liberal lifestyle, more alternative choices for the future. That will settle once and for all the angst that they are feeling from the pressure and pain inflicted on them by the conservatives. If the LGBTs feel strongly that this is the direction for the new world, be brave and passionate, go forth and push their agenda in Parliament.

Change must be fair, says Chok Tong

Chok Tong has spelt out three fundamental principles for change in the political system. First, 'they must be fair to all contesting parties and "not be biased in favour of one party or the other".' Second, 'they must result in a strong, effective Govt.' And third, they must 'facilitate representation for diverse views in parliament, including views of Opposition parties.' For Chok Tong to talk about a fairer system and the representation of diverse views, including opposition views, is a sign that there is an opening up, a change in the PAP's dominant ideology. Before this, the PAP's position is to win all the seats at all costs, be there opposition in Parliament or otherwise. Perhaps PAP has become wiser, knowing that there are values to have real alternative views, and that they really do not have the monopoly of talent and wisdom. Perhaps they also realised that a time has come when the people forming the opposition parties are decent and respectable people that will contest the election fairly and not to do Singapore in. And many could have very similar values with the PAP except with some differences here and there. Now we will have to see what are the changes and whether they conform to this new paradigm shift, to be more inclusive, more willing to listen and accept opposition as part and parcel of a mature political system. In the first principle above, it wil be interesting to see how this could be done to be seen as being fair by the opposition parties and not fair according to what PAP thinks is fair. The third principle is much easier to attain by working out some formula for greater participation in Parliament. The most tricky part is the second principle. How could a system ensure that there will be 'a strong, effective Govt?' Strong means a big majority. Effective means the candidates must be straight As material. To make these compatible with the second principle will not be easy. We will wait and see the details.