The EP election is over

The election is over, let’s move on. That’s my thought. Afterall, nothing changes, nothing new can be expected from the EP except more of the same until they change the roles of the EP provided in the Constitutions. We can see more charity shows, more kissing of children and more walking in the Istana Park. Just read in the paper that Tony wanted to lend his expertise in fund management to the govt!

I think everyone is still hot about this election and I shall just add in a few comments. From the beginning this was an interesting election. The candidates, four of them and their eligibilities to even run in the election were full of controversies. Even pushing out Tony Tan from his comfort zones in GIC and SPH must have raised eyebrows.

The results of the election will be carefully studied by the political parties. One corner is claiming great victory as the 70% for Tony and Cheng Bock is now claimed as endorsement for the PAP. Is that so? Isn’t Cheng Bock a reject from the PAP camp, a rebel who shocked the PAP by announcing his candidacy? And the PAP could not risk a George Yeo and had to push out its biggest gun to face Cheng Bock.

The 35% for Tony and the 30% for both Jee Say and Kin Lian could be standard distribution of the hard core supporters of the pro and anti PAP camps. These voters are permanent features in any election and can be counted upon without much effort.

What is important is the middle ground. In this case Cheng Bock was the biggest beneficiary. The middle ground stood their ground and the popular vote for Tony plunged to 35%, much less than Teng Cheong’s, and much lesser than the 60% PAP won during the GE. Would these be telling signs of a slide in support for the PAP camp? No, say the ardent PAP analysts. The PAP got 70%. Sure, and be happy and crow about it.

There are many could be’s and should be’s. Many regretted that without the four corner fights there would see a very different picture and a very different President. No one shall blame any of the candidates. It is the right of every citizen, and an honour, to run for the Presidency. There were also attempts to work out a strategy and preventing a split vote situation. I think Kin Lian knew of his chances early and wanted to withdraw by sending out signals to the other candidates. His gestures were turned down as no one wanted even to talk.

Nothing is lost except that the picture of the future is forming and getting clearer. The future of change is in the GE in 2016 and not in this EP election. If Tony did not win, what could happen is a dud Presidency that will be ignored by the govt. There will be noises generated, heat, but no real progress.

The citizens that are looking for change must look at the GE and make it count this time. The PAP’s strength or weakness is exposed, all 35% of it. The middle ground will not be easily won and if the PAP is going to take them for granted, that the 35% for Cheng Bock is also for PAP, it will be interesting comes 2016. For, if the PAP really believes in this, you can expect what the follow through policies in the next few years will be like.
The battle ground is set and the pieces are being placed. Let’s move on.

PS. Put the ears on the ground. Listen to the oohs and aahs, the rumble and regrets. That is what many of the concerned citizens are saying.

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?