PAP fears WP will block constitutional amendments

Shanmugam said, ‘…what the WP wants is the power in Parliament to block constitutional amendments and money Bills, as an interim step. The ultimate goal is of taking over the govt.’ Is there anything wrong with both objectives? It is exactly for the first objective that the people must support the WP and the opposition. Many constitutional changes have been made which were questionable and should not be allowed to go through. One major one involves the conditions to qualify to stand for the elected President. If the President is a ceremonial position, appointed to honour someone’s contribution to the country, and paid a pittance, oops, an honorarium, it is acceptable and likely that only the elites will be appointed. As an elected President, elected by the people with some executive power, no ordinary citizen shall be deprived from the privilege of standing out for the people to decide if they are good enough to serve in that office. All the elitist criteria and condition is bull. What if the constitution is amended again to state that only people who have served as a minister can qualify to be an elected President? Possible, if there is no opposition MP to vote against it. The GRC system was created out of necessity to protect minority representation. It is now a different animal with 4,5,6 or maybe more MPs in one GRC. You need to block such things from getting out of hand. The high remuneration for political office is another questionable bill. It is going out of tune and going terribly wild. It is exactly for such reasons that we need a strong opposition representation in Parliament to block constitutional amendments and money bills, to keep the system in check and in balance. For those who agreed to all the constitutional amendments, please continue to vote for a one party dominant Parliament. For those who believe that there must be checks on the what is acceptable and what is not, they must vote for more opposition representation in Parliament, to deprive any ruling party of a 2/3 majority.

I angry with Mah Bow Tan

I am not only angry with Mah Bow Tan, but also very disappointed with him. He is so confusing. Doesn’t he believe in his asset enhancement policy? I believe in him and am depending on him to push up HDB resale price so that I can sell my flat for a million bucks and retire in Lijiang. Look at what he is doing? He is ramming up the building programme for BTO flats. And he is building so many in so short a time, just like the way they brought in the foreigners. The damn thing is that at that time he was not building, or building very few flats. Now, with the inflow of foreigners slowing down, he is building more flats frantically. What is the meaning of this? What is he trying to do? Pushing down HDB resale prices? Pushing down COV prices? Hey, what are you doing man, I was so happy supporting your asset enhancement policy and eagering waiting for the resale price to hit the roof, and now you are reversing everything that you have done? Are you losing faith in your asset enhancement policy? Are you losing faith in believing what you were doing was right? I am really disappointed and confused by what you said and what you do now. Are you for asset enhancement or not? Look at the other ministers, they are fully committed to the foreign talent policies and not wavering with what they think is right and good for Singapore. They are telling the Singaporeans daily that more foreigner’s policy is good. They are acting like deaf frog and will continue with the foreign talent policies, charging ahead when they think is right. They believe they have something good for Singaporeans. And after the election if they continue to ram up the influx of foreigners, no one can call them hypocrites. For they have never regretted what they were doing. In the case of housing and asset enhancement, if the policy changes again after the GE, what would people think? Before GE say and do one thing, after GE say and do different thing. But don’t worry, I will support you, and many people will be happy if the asset enhancement policy is resumed in full force. Don’t take too long as many are waiting for the price of their flats to shoot to the sky again. Please go back to your asset enhancement policy. Don’t be disturbed by a few kpkb in cyberspace. They are just noises.

Zulu chief, mama chief and baby

A Zulu chief standing beside mama chief holding a baby wrapped in cloth. The chief is wearing a pair of long white moustache. In front of them are several village elders. Click Art of RAR Gallery image on top right for more photo paintings.

Are words an indication of what could come next?

The first strong word used is ‘irresponsible’. How can we have irresponsible people running the country. Agree. Next, ‘strange bedfellows’. What does this word mean or imply? There is a bed and a fellow. Can be pretty sexy. Would it lead to pornography? Now a more powerful and serious word just came out, ‘mischievous’. This word alone can get people into deep trouble, even be sued in the court of law. Wait, there are other words that may be equally frightening. One is insanity. This word is closely associated with IMH. But a more scary word is ‘dangerous’. If anyone is being tagged as insane or dangerous, the person better be very, very frighten. Run road is an option to consider. Pray these words would not be heard or used. Oh, another word, ‘fundamentalist’. Depending on what context it is being applied to, it can be very dangerous as well.

From greed to fear

Going back to fundamentals, one man one vote and one MP for one constituency. That was what was all about in a democratic election. But there were weak candidates that would not survive in such a system. All political parties have strong and weak candidates. And when a strong candidate is pitted against a weak one, the result is obvious. There was also a genuine need to ensure minority representation. A GRC of 3 of which one must be a minority member was invented. It worked. All GRCs were mostly walkovers. The opposition were struggling and panting to recruit good candidates and to find the money for deposits. With the GRCs, it was a miracle formula to ensure victory in the GE. The advantages to a big and strong party were obvious. How could the opposition parties find that numerous good candidates to stand in a GRC? How could they raise the money, at $16k for a 6 member GRC it comes to $96k, to lose. The barrier to entry is raised higher and higher with each election. The strongest point of a GRC is that it can be easily carried by a minister. Just send in a minister and the GRC will be in the pocket. Some jokers still think so. So we have 3 member GRCs to 4, 5 and 6 member GRCs. Why not, it is a sure win formula. But things are not working out as they were supposed to. The trump card of a GRC, a minister, is turning from an advantage to an Achilles’ heel. Several ministers will not only be unable to helm a GRC, they will become a liability and guarantee its defeat. That is how bad it has become. I may be wrong if you see how confident they are in their walkabouts, like they are definitely going to be elected. And despite the high monetary cost to put up a GRC of 5 or 6 members, the opposition not only could raise the money, they could attract enough quality candidates to stand in the GRCs. This is unprecedented and totally unexpected. With stronger candidates from the opposition parties and badly weakened ministers leading the GRC teams, suddenly the odds of winning a GRC are more in favour of the opposition. Or at least the chances are more equal. What does this mean? With GRCs, clean sweep is so easy and effortless then. Walkovers were the order of the day. The PAP could win big when the odds are in its favour. Now the odds have changed and the fear of losing big is so real. The spectre of a freak election result is going to haunt the PAP in this election. But why called it a freak result when it is just what the people decided who they want to vote for? An election result is an election result. What is so freakish about it? If GRC is going to cost the PAP big losses this time, you can bet that the GRC game will be over in the next GE. It will all be back to square one, one man one vote and one MP for one constituency. All the great reasons and arguments for GRC will be passé. GRC will be seen as gambling in big stake. One either wins all or loses all. Can be quite dramatic, traumatic, and quite irresponsible in a way to stake all for a show hand. Some may be counting how many ministers will be packing their bags after this GE. A freakish election is going to happen, and can happen.