The gambler won

Actually I did not want to make any post today as I was saddened by the results of the polls. While typing this, I was high in spirit of the liquid kind. I voted for checks and balance, but the gambler won. Not I say one hor, I read in the paper and it said Tony’s big gamble pays off.

Come to think of it, it is quite true. No sensible person who is untouchable in SPH and GIC, and probably earning more millions than the Presidency would resign both positions to stand for an election that he may not win. I would not put my money on such a person. And he won by the skin of his teeth. If there were only two candidates, he would have lost badly.

I still cannot get over it. Why would anyone walk into a situation that he could lose so much and win much less? One way to look at it is that he is a great man with great conviction and commitment to the country. That he is willing to make big sacrifices to make sure that the country is in good hands.

The other way of looking at it is that it is a totally silly thing to do. A big gamble for nothing. Only an irrational and silly person would put in such a big stake for lesser returns, and may even lose everything. After this close call, I don’t thing any PAP stalwart would dare to accept such a proposition even with a gun on his head.

Fortunately the gambler won. Or did he? He garnered only 35% of the votes, only a few thousands more than Cheng Bock who had only a softball association to endorse him. Tony has practically the whole machinery on his side, and all the endorsements, and that was all he could get.

Cheng Bock could take away 25% of the votes for PAP to give Tony a fright of his life. And I don’t think the PAP is backing Cheng Bock at all as it would be difficult to explain to Tony for staking his Chairmanship in SPH and GIC and the millions of dollars.

I am not at all comfortable with the outcome and the new President for taking such a big gamble. And I can’t even call him a gambler. A gambler is smarter than this.

Stock market or casino?

The Australian Stock Exchange has made the most innovative decision to appoint the CEO of a casino as its head. They must have come to realise that the stock market has in all counts nothing but a casino. And they need a casino man with his experience in running a gambling den to manage it. Also, for a gambling den, the strong regulations are vital to protect the customers from being cheated.

In the same page of the ST today, the SGX was reported to tightening its enforcement of errant listed companies. It wanted to do more to prevent more failures. It would apply its rules and regulations to the letter and spirit.

Good sayings, and the problems are always with other people. Has the SGX contributed to the problems, or is the SGX the problem itself? Is there a conflict of interest in its pursuit of profitability and thus violating its own rules and regulations to the letter and spirit?

The introduction of high speed trading, programme trading and the plugging of these super computers into the trading system to trade against the small investors, is this fair trading? Is the playing field level as this is the key principle and spirit that the SGX is to uphold? Then there is the Dark Pool which violates the principle of transparency that is also another key responsibility for the SGX to uphold.

Has the SGX been operating under the same principles and rules and regulations that it is legally bound to uphold? If it doesn’t, who is there to ensure that SGX does according to its mission and role as the operator of a profit making body and its own regulator?

This is another case of who is to regulate the regulators and protect the innocent customers?

Polling Day - What are we voting for?

We have an election for a ‘lame duck’ President under the Constitution. Yes, he has veto rights to several important areas. He can only exercise his veto if a piece of paper is placed to his desk. If nothing is placed on his desk, there is nothing to veto at all. Get it?

This does not mean that this election is not important. It is, and every citizen must think about it carefully and use his vote wisely. This election is not about voting against the PAP. This election is not about voting the coolest uncle to take pictures with. This election is not about voting someone to kick butts.

This election is about checks and balance. This election is about being sensible and knowing what is good for you and your children. This election is to tell the world that you are not daft.

And you can confirm your daftness by voting for absolute power. You can double confirm your daftness by voting for checks and balance by ‘ka ki lang’, or in English, voting for the same kind to check on the same kind. And you can triple confirm your daftness by voting for both above reasons. And your daftness will forever be carved in stone.

Go to the polling station tomorrow to redeem yourself, your dignity and self respect, that you are not daft, that you are able to think clearly and logically.

What a mischievious post!

The Online Citizen, 25 Aug 2011
There are rumours circulating online that Presidential candidate Tan Jee Say gatecrashed Singapore People’s Party’s (SPP) National Day dinner last Saturday (see HERE).
A Workers’ Party member Melvin Tan who contested in the 2006 General Election, writing a note on his Facebook said that he has chosen to vote for Dr Tan Cheng Bock over Mr Tan Jee Say because Mr Tan Jee Say seem to have “an air of superiority” around him, and also because he did not like how Mr Tan “heckled Tony Tan” in TOC’s ‘Face to Face 2′ Presidential Forum.
That Facebook note is now being circulated widely online.
In the same note Mr Melvin Tan said:
“The last straw was the SPP National Day Dinner on 20 Aug ’11, where I bought tickets to attend to support Chiam See Tong for all he has done for Singapore. TJS (Tan Jee Say) turned up and in my view gate-crashed the event and stole the limelight. From very reliable sources, that wasn’t pleasant for the Chiams or SPP.”

TOC tried to clarify this with SPP and spoke to Dr David Tan, Central Executive Committee member of SPP.
Dr Tan in speaking to TOC said, “It’s untrue! I invited Tan Jee Say in my personal capacity to the dinner. Mr Tan initially declined because of his prior commitments. But later, because of my insistence, he agreed to drop-by to say hello to the Chiams and myself.”
Dr David Tan was Mr Tan Jee Say’s teacher when Mr Tan was a student in Raffles Institution.
When informed that Mr Tan Jee Say would like to drop-by the party to greet the Chiams, Mr and Mrs Chiam welcomed him, clarified Dr David Tan.


Why would this Melvin Tan come out with such a statement that unwary readers would form a bad impression on Tan Jee Say at a critical moment like this? Why, why. why?

Let me think. A lot of conspiracy theories appeared in my mind. For someone who wanted to be an MP, it can be expected that he would make such statements only if the facts were correct. Why would he make such a statement only to be proven wrong immediately by the organisers?

Fishy eh?

New clothes maketh a new man

Are Singaporeans mortals or higher mortals, or simply robotics? We have a Presidential election tomorrow. From the onset of this election the Singaporeans were told that this is a non political election. The Elected President is non political and is above politics. There is no politics involved here, but the higher national interests. So Singaporeans all went about garbling that the election has nothing to do with Singapore’s politics.

Next came the candidates for the presidency. Three resigned from their political parties only a few days ago, and one resigned several years back. All claimed to be independent of any political parties or association. And all claimed that they are now new men and will not be influenced or affected by their past associations. The apolitical Office of the Presidency is safe. It will not be tarnished by any swine that will be elected to serve the interests of political parties.

And no political party stands out to endorse any of the candidates, to keep politics out of the election. Any politicians that endorsed or spoke well for the candidates were speaking in their own personal capacities, with no political agenda.

This is how clean this Presidential election has become. It is a role model for the world to emulate. Change the clothes and change the man. We have instant trees. Now we have instant apolitical men.

My apologies. Think I have a few glasses too many.