Say a word for the little people

Many Singaporeans are involved in the stock market. Some have fallen victims to the harsh and excessive penalties imposed by the SGX for small mistakes that they made while trading, ie, selling shares that they did not own. To err is human. A slight mistake like this will cause the small investors a $1000 fine! This may be chicken feed to the big boys in SGX who only know money in the millions and millions. So setting a $1000 penalty for a minor mistake may be very kind in their eyes, but it is a big sum of money to many people. The SGX’s justification is to curb short selling that will affect the market, or cause more work to buy in for their staff. What utter rubbish. The 5 lots or 20 lots that a small investor sold by mistake, intentional or otherwise, will have minimal or no impact on the price of the shares. It is the big boys that short sell in hundreds of thousands, or millions, that will distort the market in their favour. They should be the one that needs to be hauled up and punished. The second reason is more unreasonable. Buying in is the job of the SGX. They cannot penalize small investors with a sledgehammer because they did not like to do it, too many buy ins too troublesome. The more freaking thing is that the small investors are the customers of the SGX. And when they make mistakes, instead of helping them, they got slammed with a sledghammer. How's that for taking good care of your customers? What kind of attitude is this? Small investors tremble in fear when they make such a mistake and pay heavily for it. And they are not commiting a crime against anyone. I think in the courts of law, many more serious crimes could be fined for less than a $1000. Here we are talking about a human error. Now, while Parliament is in session, I can only hope that some MPs would raise this issue for the sake of the small investors. The small investors are simply helpless in the face of such unreasonable, disproportionate and costly penalty. Or maybe the sum of $1000 is also too small in the eyes of the MPs and no one thinks that this is an issue.

Opposition MPs deserved to be respected

Was it a coincidence, or Media Corp read what I posted about the lack of coverage on opposition MPs in the Parliament report? Both were unlikely. It was probably their way of scheduling whose turn to appear on TV, and last night I saw Sylvia Lim, Low Thia Kiang and even Chiam See Tong’s face on the news. So strange. For quite a while, opposition MPs were somehow treated in a less friendly way by the media and also in Parliament. They were kind of like the enemies of the people, out to subvert the govt, to do the country in. They were like thugs or gangsters, probably carrying guns and acid into Parliament. In short they were up to no good and should be kept at a dismissive distance. Actually the opposition MPs are also the people’s elected representatives to Parliament. They deserve to be respected and treated with some decency and decorum. Treating them otherwise, humiliating them, spitting at them, mocking at them, etc is as good as showing no respect to the people who elected them and whom the MPs were representing. By adopting such a negative stance, it will only accentuate a deep divide among parliamentarians in the highest house of the land. We do not want our parliamentarians to drift down to a state when they hurl shoes or throw chairs at one another. The parliament is a place to contest ideas in a honourable and respectful way. It is not a place to run down one another at the slightest opportunity, right or wrong, like little boys and girls do, to look smug. Our Parliament can be a model parliament where debates and issues are discussed seriously, vehemously, and logically, where parliamentarians fight vigorously over issues instead of taking snipe attacks at one another. We are a mature first world country and our parliamentarians should behave likewise, with great honour, graciousness and humility, while pursuing their political objectives and championing the cause of the people. Chok Tong has fired the first salvo to be fairer to the opposition, to listen to their views. Let’s make this real for once. We need to grow up and behave like adults.

Thank you Malaysia

Malaysia is keeping Mas Selamat for two years. This is the best favour that Malaysia can do for us. Now we don't have to house him in an expensive landed property in one of the choices part of the island. And we don't have to feed him, cloth him, make sure he is well. The best part is not having to worry that he will run away again. This will now be Malaysia's problem. For the next two years, it is unlikely that Mas Selamat will be able to escape from the Malaysian detention camp. He can only be free if Malaysia agrees to let him go, in two years time. The worry will start only then.

Changes to electoral system counter productive

The changes as announced will ensure more alternative views from NMPs. That is ok. As for the possibility of more opposition MPs or NCMPs, that may not be a good thing given that opposition MPs are mostly very simplistic in their views, of no substance and only opposed for opposition's sake. And by looking at the Parliamentary proceedings, it is clear that when NMPs talked, they will be listened to without much rebutting. But when simplistic opposition MPs talked, you can expect immediate rebuttals. Their views are just not worth anything. So the new changes may be a contradiction. The offering of more single seat wards may not see more than the current two opposition MPs. The better qualified and talented MPs that were selected through a thorough system of screening will definitely won in SMCs if they are contested. And they must all be very eager to take on the less talented opposition candidates. Let's see who is going to take on Low Thia Kiang and Chaim See Tong and win. If they can beat these two, then maybe they are really something. It will be quite embarrassing if they can't even beat MPs that are simplistic and say things that are not worth listening to.

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?