Deaf frogs demanding Chen Show Mao to tell them his motives

After being interviewed by the media and all the reasons for running for election, for returning home, for joining the WP, some deaf frogs are asking for him to tell them why? I will tell Chen Show Mao not to bother. Deaf frogs will always be deaf and will not listen nor bother to listen. Why don’t deaf frogs ask all the candidates from all the parties, especially new citizens and children, for their motives in standing for election? Everyone has a motive and for some it is all about ‘Shen Guan Fa Cai’. Let’s be honest lah, don’t pretend pretend that there are more noble motives like sacrificing for the country and losing out in paychecks. But of course there will be genuine honourable people who will serve for peanuts, or at least will want to serve the country and people for their idealistic beliefs in goodness. To some, these are idealistic fools. Fortunately the world is a better place with such fools. For the masses, one should dig deeper and ask who is running for what, and don’t pretend to be like deaf frogs, never hear anything and keep demanding people to repeat and repeat. There are those that have eyes but not see, and those have ears but not hear, and they can have paradise on earth all for themselves.

Fools, gamblers or strategists?

I can't believe my ears when I heard in the news that some single seat wards will be facing 3 corner fights and some even 4 corner fights. The first impression that comes to mind is that the opposition parties are made up of fools or just opportunists trying their luck. For years, it has been proven that on a one to one contest, the ruling party will win hands down. And here the oppositions are going in to contest in 3 and 4 corner fights. What are they up to? What are they thinking? Nothing to lose? Not really huh. There is a deposit to be forfeited. Other than spoiling everyone's chances, there is a monetary price to pay. Maybe the parties cannot say no to the many adventurers who die die want to try. Maybe the parties should ask the adventurers to pay for the deposits themselves. The other thing to be mindful is the perception of the electorate. What will the electorate be thinking when a motley bunch tries to fight against the ruling party and among themselves? Credibility is at stake. I just hope that it is just a wayang, a strategy to confuse the enemy. Comes nomination day it will be a one against one contest. The opposition parties need to show to the electorate that they are serious in wanting to win the election and not mucking around for fun. And a 3 or 4 corner fight simply says that they are not worthy to be elected. Or some jokers is out to spoil the chances of other better candidates. In this case I am for a higher deposit for whoever to lose, to make it painful in the pocket so that they would not dare to tikam tikam. But higher deposit is a bad idea as it will give undue advantage to those with the money to throw.

Please cry for me

I just renewed my car insurance. Who were the jokers who were supposed to look into this matter and prevent the motorists from being robbed? I do not have any claims and my insurance premium is higher than when the car was new! And the value of the car is going lower, the NCB going higher, and the premium going higher and higher. Would any politician cry for the motorists being robbed in broad daylight?

Worker’s Party wants to abolish PA

Worker’s Party has made the abolishing of the PA as one of their key objectives if they win the election. I would like them to add another, the abolishing of all the elitist conditions for the office of the elected President. The highest office of the land must be open to every citizen of the country, other than criminals. It must not be kept only for a special select few based on criteria other than the goodness, integrity and honour of the candidate. So what if someone is rich, clever, earns a lot of money, runs a big company or organization? These do not make the person a better man. These cannot be the criteria to bar other citizens from wanting to stand for election to be the President of the country. If every ordinary citizen can serve the country as a national service man, to fight and die for the country, he has every right to stand for election as the President of the country. It is a flawed argument that the President can only be chosen from the elite. Every citizen in the country shall have equal opportunity to serve at the highest office of the land. No one shall be discriminated because of his station in life, or he does not have the opportunity to earn big money or work in a big organization. Under the flag of the nation every citizen is equal. No one shall be more equal than others by virtue of wealth or any other criteria. No one or party shall deprive the citizens of this right to run for the office of the Presidency. If every citizen can stand for election for the more important positions of Prime Ministers and Ministers, there is no reason why there should be so many barriers for the Presidency.

A hungry man versus a well fed man

We are know that a hungry can be a hardworking man, also dangerous when he is really hungry. But given enough motivation and the promise of reward, to feed his hunger pangs, a hungry man can be a dependable worker. Feed him 50% full and he wants more. Feed him 70% full and he will become more efficient and wanting more, but safer. A 70% full man will not want to risk his good fortune. At 80% or 90% full, he starts to get groggy. He thinks well of himself and does not want to take risk anymore. He knows that good times are here and he only needs to keep going without rocking the boat. He is happy and contented. At 100% full, he is not only full in the stomach, he is also full of himself. And he can be very lazy and also very dangerous. He wants everything and wants to protect his everything. Now he does not think of working. He only thinks of protecting his wealth and his good life. And he will do everything to achieve that and anyone trying to cross his path will be in trouble. In my humble opinion, a 70% full man, or maybe a little more, 80% full man, is the best. Anything more is inefficiency and extravagant, wasteful. A 70% full man can be as effective if not more effective than a 80% or 90% full man. Forget about the 100% full man. In politics, I think a 70% majority is better than a 100% majority in parliament. I know who will tell you that 100% is the best. Between these two, there can be many views. I would want a govt that is run by a 70% majority party than a 100% majority. Just an opinion and personal preference from the wisdom of history. The wisdom of the rulers will tell you that this is bullshit. Only 100% and nothing else can do. You want a good and effective govt, you must vote for a 100% majority govt. You better decide what is best for you instead of someone telling you so.