Do we need losers and rejects in Parliament?

Parliament is where the elected representatives of the people sit to discuss national issues and decide on what should be done for the good of the people. Do we then need losers, people who are rejected by the people, or people who are not elected by the people, to sit there and engage in schoolboy debate? This schoolboy debate was not coined by me. It was reported in the media. What is the point of debating when they cannot decide anything? What is the point of being in Parliament when they don't represent anyone except themselves? If they want to speak out, share their views, won't starting a blog be simpler and be sure of being heard, every word, with commas and fullstops? What kind of Parliament do we want? A Parliament of elected representatives or a make belief group of representatives representing no one?

China is doomed. What about Europe?

Everyday one cannot escape the deluge of doomsayer's reports about the imminent collapse of China. China is plagued by all kinds of enormous problems and troubles that it is only a matter of days before it falls down like a house of cards. Not only western media are at it, even local media are also at it. These are the China experts and their intelligent opinions. What about Europe? What about America? Nay, these are the world's best managed countries, and they are all in the G8 and the G20. What about the PIGS? It means Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, what's happening there? Oops, I think PIGs should be spelt PIIGS, to include Iceland. Heard that these countries are at the verge of collapse, just like the US? And some are talking about a dominoe effect when one by one, countries in the EU will just collapse. Maybe some are already except that they are not discovered, or still kept under seal. Maybe they are waiting for China to collapse first. If China does not collapse, none of the European country can collapse. China must come first.

A higher god descended on paradise

Why did we invite a higher god to mark our report cards on how well we are doing? Is it because we believe that we have done so well and the higher god will be so impressed that he will go back to the kingdom of gods with a glowing report of the fabulous job that we have done. Now our demigods are in for a little nasty surprise when the higher god is not so impressed. And some recommendations were made by the higher god on how we could do better. One of the most sensitive area touched on by the higher god is race and affirmative actions. Our feathers were ruffled for sure. Maybe our demigods would like to ask this higher god how well he did in his own backyard? Did they add 20% or 30% to the marks of their minorities so that more of them could go to universities? Or are their minorities as able and affluent as our minorities? How about their own inter racial/religious relations? Also, they may want to check the credentials of these higher gods. Do they have straight As or do they got their straight As also by affirmative actions? Higher gods that got to become gods through affirmative actions cannot hold a candle to our demigods who got their supertalent credentials on their own merits.

An interesting affordable table

New HDB flats still affordable mah! And this is the table provided by Mah Bow Tan. 2 rm $100k Median household income $1,380 3 rm $162k Median household income $2,100 4 rm $263k Median household income $4,100 5 rm $338k Median household income $5,300 Below is the price and income level in 1974 of mine. 3 rm $18k Median household income $1,500 4 rm $22k Median household income $1,800 5 rm $27.5k Median household income $2,500 Of course Mah Bow Tan is right. The flats in 1974 and the flats today are all affordable. It is how much one is paying and getting in return. Money getting smaller or quality of housing improving? The flats that the people are getting are worth every cent they paid for it, then and today. Are the life of the people getting better? Swiss standard of living in price? Is this what is meant by being better off? Maybe it is not fair to use 1974 statistics. Let’s be honest, even 1984 or 1994 statistics are not fair. We should use something more recent, like 1995 or 1996, to be relevant. I can project that in the future a $10,000 household income would probably afford only a 2 rm flat. And I will call it affordable still. As for today, a $2,500 household income could only afford a 3 rm flat while a $2,500 income could afford a 5 rm flat in the past. So please do not disagree with Mah Bow Tan that the flats are now unaffordable. He is absolutely right. The flats today are affordable and will be affordable even in the future. Maybe then for the same money one will get a dog’s kennel and pay in 100 years.

How about a Tombang Scheme?

I would like to take up on what Kan Seng said about making the cake bigger so everyone can have a share of it. How about turning this NCMP scheme into a bigger scheme called the Tombang Scheme? The Tombang Scheme shall work this way. The best losers in a constituency or GRC shall be made NCMPs. In this way we can have 84 elected MPs and 84 NCMPs. Then we will have good quality debates in Parliament. And the ruling party has nothing to fear as when voting on any issue is needed, they could easily win by 84-0. The voters knowing that there will be guaranteed with oppositions in Parliament will just vote for the best party and the best party will likely get all the 84 MPs in. And we have a bigger cake to share with the opposition parties. And the opposition party MPs can make all the noises they want in Parliament. This could be an improved system from what we are having now. And if the NCMPs can prove that they are really good, the voters will vote for them in the future. This is good for the country, surely. It gives the people a chance to observe and assess the NCMPs before voting them in. Good huh?