The background of MPs in Parliament is as varied as the people in the market. We have people from all kinds of professions, the rich and the not so rich, the old and the young, those that have grown up, those who still think they are in schools. And with the introduction of NMPs, we have people representing different interest groups and niche circles.
Now, how would this diverse group of people interact in Parliament and how would they use Parliament to serve their agenda. I believe they would be there to promote the interest of the people or their professions and interest groups.
Would an actor or actress go to Parliament to practise acting? Would a lawyer go to Parliament to practise how to become a better lawyer? Or would a soldier go to Parliament to play shooting at your enemy since he likes to play with guns? Or should a school prefect go to Parliament to role play as a prefect as he misses the fun he had as a school boy? Some may go to Parliament to fly kites as that was their hobby and they love flying kites.
I believe Parliament is for more serious stuff and MPs in Parliament are to discuss serious matters that will affect the lives of the people and country. I hope there are not anglers who carry their fishing rods to cast in Parliament. Or the little scientists to fly their paper planes across the house.
Does anyone have any idea why he is in Parliament or what he should do in Parliament, seriously, other than to have some fun?
3/17/2012
44 men to make or break your life … and your country
Every 5 years our democratic system gives the citizens the right to elect 87 men and women to run the country and indirectly our lives. And by the rule of a simple majority, all it needs is 44 men to be elected from one party to form the ruling govt. In a normal democratic system they will manage the country under some platforms and ideas they sold to the electorate and are expected to work within those ideas and policies during their term in office. Varying from those consented ideas will be a violation of trust. Running away with new ideas that were not agreeable during the election promises would be a breach of faith and the people’s consent be sought again.
A mature democracy would have its checks and balance to ensure that the ruling govt does not get carried away with what they want to do and think that they can commit murders with total disregard to the views of the people. In an immature state, where the people are ignorant, depoliticised, fear of the govt and did not know their right to change govt, many trespasses, abuses and unilateral decision making in direct conflict with the wants of the people are often shafted down the people’s throats at will.
Are we still in such a state of immaturity or have we grown up as a well educated, informed and politicised people, aware of our rights as citizens, the OB markers that the govt must respect, and our right to shape our lives and the future of our nation? Or are the people still as naïve, apolitical, disenfranchised, to surrender all their rights to an elected govt of 44 men to do as they pleased with their lives and country?
In an era of ignorance and illiteracy, the people may by default allow the elite to rule them on the assumption that they know better. And sometimes the elite may get deluded or delude the people into believing that they are demi gods or immortals, and they are the best to drive their lives and country forward. I believe as a people calling ourselves first world, with many highly educated and qualified, such myths will long be thrown into the longkangs. The people are now as knowledgeable and well informed as the ruling elite, and have a mind of their own to know or to question what they want in their lives and where the country shall be heading. There is really little between the ruling elite and the people at large in terms of intellect and wisdom.
Assuming the latter is where we are today, should the people continue to dismissively take the edicts of the elite and let the elite rule them, interfere with their lives and take the country to wherever they want?
Do we want to have a 6m population or more, ever increasing housing prices, unable to own private cars unless paying with an arm or a leg, that we should be content to live in smaller and smaller high rise flats, lesser breathing and leisure space, to go around in public transports that the people have little control of and often at the mercy of operators’ interests and whims and fancies and with little privacy or privacy violated by the ill mannered and uncouth?
Would it be time that the people tell the 44 elected representatives that they are there, given the chance to run the country, only with the consent of the people, and if they failed or are not up to it in their jobs, they will be summarily removed by the people? Is it time the people take control of their country, decide where it wants it to go, and be in charge and not be ruled by 44 people who were only to do a job with their approval and not to think they can do anything they want without the people’s agreement, that they own the country, the people and the people’s life and wealth?
Isn’t it silly for 3m people to succumb to 44 men and women elected by them to do as they please and with the people only at best, crying out loud but helpless to do anything about it? Who owns this country and who should decide how the people are to live their own lives?
A mature democracy would have its checks and balance to ensure that the ruling govt does not get carried away with what they want to do and think that they can commit murders with total disregard to the views of the people. In an immature state, where the people are ignorant, depoliticised, fear of the govt and did not know their right to change govt, many trespasses, abuses and unilateral decision making in direct conflict with the wants of the people are often shafted down the people’s throats at will.
Are we still in such a state of immaturity or have we grown up as a well educated, informed and politicised people, aware of our rights as citizens, the OB markers that the govt must respect, and our right to shape our lives and the future of our nation? Or are the people still as naïve, apolitical, disenfranchised, to surrender all their rights to an elected govt of 44 men to do as they pleased with their lives and country?
In an era of ignorance and illiteracy, the people may by default allow the elite to rule them on the assumption that they know better. And sometimes the elite may get deluded or delude the people into believing that they are demi gods or immortals, and they are the best to drive their lives and country forward. I believe as a people calling ourselves first world, with many highly educated and qualified, such myths will long be thrown into the longkangs. The people are now as knowledgeable and well informed as the ruling elite, and have a mind of their own to know or to question what they want in their lives and where the country shall be heading. There is really little between the ruling elite and the people at large in terms of intellect and wisdom.
Assuming the latter is where we are today, should the people continue to dismissively take the edicts of the elite and let the elite rule them, interfere with their lives and take the country to wherever they want?
Do we want to have a 6m population or more, ever increasing housing prices, unable to own private cars unless paying with an arm or a leg, that we should be content to live in smaller and smaller high rise flats, lesser breathing and leisure space, to go around in public transports that the people have little control of and often at the mercy of operators’ interests and whims and fancies and with little privacy or privacy violated by the ill mannered and uncouth?
Would it be time that the people tell the 44 elected representatives that they are there, given the chance to run the country, only with the consent of the people, and if they failed or are not up to it in their jobs, they will be summarily removed by the people? Is it time the people take control of their country, decide where it wants it to go, and be in charge and not be ruled by 44 people who were only to do a job with their approval and not to think they can do anything they want without the people’s agreement, that they own the country, the people and the people’s life and wealth?
Isn’t it silly for 3m people to succumb to 44 men and women elected by them to do as they please and with the people only at best, crying out loud but helpless to do anything about it? Who owns this country and who should decide how the people are to live their own lives?
3/16/2012
Israel awaiting the wrath of God
No country in the world other than Israel would dare openly shout that it would attack another country on the pretext of protecting its national interest. Iran cannot have the nuclear bomb. Only Israel can and can have many. Israel’s security or insecurity is to ensure that no one is allowed to carry a big stick other than itself.
The other country that should also suffer the wrath of God is the USA. It shares the same doctrine and logic. In the name of its national security or insecurity, it goes around the world attacking other countries or messing around with other nation’s politics and security. My security is your insecurity, your oppression and submission. Only the US can have the biggest military outfit to attack other countries. No one else is allowed to. Any country wanting to build a strong defence force must explain to Washington, to Hilarious directly.
How many lives will be destroyed in an attack on Iran in the name of Israel’s security? What if every country adopts this doctrine and policy? Every other weaker country would be attacked and oppressed and prohibited from building its own defence capability. Is this the logic of a civilized country or the logic of gangsters? I read recently a quote that the Red Indians of old America were savages while the Europeans were civilized. History said the savages were savaged and terminated by a series of coordinated genocides by the civilized Europeans to enable the civilized savages to take over the land of people of a different civilization, definitely not savages.
The Red Indians were branded as savages, and their homes, communities and husbandry, their land, were robbed from them. They were a threat to the lives of the Europeans and must be destroyed. Today the Iranians and Arabs are regarded not much different from the Red Indians, as savages, untrustworthy, dangerous and a threat to the survival of the Israelis and Western dominance. They need to be oppressed and shackled for their own good. They must not be allowed to challenge, or be strong enough to pose a problem to the West and Israel.
God is might.
The other country that should also suffer the wrath of God is the USA. It shares the same doctrine and logic. In the name of its national security or insecurity, it goes around the world attacking other countries or messing around with other nation’s politics and security. My security is your insecurity, your oppression and submission. Only the US can have the biggest military outfit to attack other countries. No one else is allowed to. Any country wanting to build a strong defence force must explain to Washington, to Hilarious directly.
How many lives will be destroyed in an attack on Iran in the name of Israel’s security? What if every country adopts this doctrine and policy? Every other weaker country would be attacked and oppressed and prohibited from building its own defence capability. Is this the logic of a civilized country or the logic of gangsters? I read recently a quote that the Red Indians of old America were savages while the Europeans were civilized. History said the savages were savaged and terminated by a series of coordinated genocides by the civilized Europeans to enable the civilized savages to take over the land of people of a different civilization, definitely not savages.
The Red Indians were branded as savages, and their homes, communities and husbandry, their land, were robbed from them. They were a threat to the lives of the Europeans and must be destroyed. Today the Iranians and Arabs are regarded not much different from the Red Indians, as savages, untrustworthy, dangerous and a threat to the survival of the Israelis and Western dominance. They need to be oppressed and shackled for their own good. They must not be allowed to challenge, or be strong enough to pose a problem to the West and Israel.
God is might.
Good strategic thinking
The decision to spend $1.1b to buy more buses is turning out to be a wise one. It is strategic and good foresight to be able to think one step ahead of problems. The regularity of train breakdowns is no longer a serious matter but a matter of inconvenience to live with. And the additional trains will come in real handy when breakdowns happened. Yesterday was a case in point and disrupted passengers were quite pleased.
Now there will be more buses and drivers to step in to transfer passengers quickly from MRT stations to their next destinations. Displaced passengers can count themselves lucky to have more buses to minimize the disruption and go on as normal. And the transfer from trains to buses is also free which will make the little inconvenience that much bearable.
Good decision. Good foresight and hindsight. Anticipating what can go wrong and preparing for the fallouts.
Now there will be more buses and drivers to step in to transfer passengers quickly from MRT stations to their next destinations. Displaced passengers can count themselves lucky to have more buses to minimize the disruption and go on as normal. And the transfer from trains to buses is also free which will make the little inconvenience that much bearable.
Good decision. Good foresight and hindsight. Anticipating what can go wrong and preparing for the fallouts.
Goldsach Sach, the rot starts here
I was reading the revelation of financial rape by Greg Smith repeated in several of our main media today. Well at least they concurred that it is important enough to report it more than once. The editors must have their conscience pricked. Greg Smith was a top player in Goldman Sach, New York. He was so disgusted by the rot in the company that he called it quits. And he found it his moral duty to reveal the unethical practices of the company.
Any clients of Goldman Sach reading what he wrote would shudder at the risk they put themselves into, at the hands of their most trusted fund managers. What Greg Smith was saying is that there were no morals, no ethics, except make money, and from the clients against the clients’ interests. The strong culture and integrity of Goldman Sach, a company he once idolatised, has been transformed into a greedy bunch of white collar ruthless manipulators to satisfy their own greed. The clients’ interest is last on their list. Better, exploiting the ignorant clients is their forte and main business.
Among the few things that Greg Smith mentioned, selling products that the company had ‘axed’ to unsuspecting clients. Getting clients to trade or churn to bring in the most profits to Goldman Sach at their expense. And trading illiquid and opaque products.
The whole culture of trust, serving the clients and making decisions to help clients to improve their positions, making money for the clients, are thrown into the rubbish chute. It is profit for Goldman Sach and its traders that is of prime concern. And getting the most out of clients is the main reason for existence than making clients rich. Clients are referred to as muppets, to rip their eyeballs out and getting paid by getting clients to trade regardless of risk.
Is it surprising? Or is there anything new? This culture of greed and irresponsibility, unethical misconduct, is the wine that flows through Wall Streets and all the financial centres around the world. Govts too are caught up by this craze and greedily swim along. The greed of govts is no lesser than the greed of Wall Street financial cheats. They are sleeping partners of crime against the innocent investors who put all trust to these crooks they thought could be trusted and will ensure that the right things are done in the right way.
They believe morality is still a virgin. The truth is that morality has long been turned into a prostitute, sold into prostitution by the greed of these power brokers, the people they trusted most.
Any clients of Goldman Sach reading what he wrote would shudder at the risk they put themselves into, at the hands of their most trusted fund managers. What Greg Smith was saying is that there were no morals, no ethics, except make money, and from the clients against the clients’ interests. The strong culture and integrity of Goldman Sach, a company he once idolatised, has been transformed into a greedy bunch of white collar ruthless manipulators to satisfy their own greed. The clients’ interest is last on their list. Better, exploiting the ignorant clients is their forte and main business.
Among the few things that Greg Smith mentioned, selling products that the company had ‘axed’ to unsuspecting clients. Getting clients to trade or churn to bring in the most profits to Goldman Sach at their expense. And trading illiquid and opaque products.
The whole culture of trust, serving the clients and making decisions to help clients to improve their positions, making money for the clients, are thrown into the rubbish chute. It is profit for Goldman Sach and its traders that is of prime concern. And getting the most out of clients is the main reason for existence than making clients rich. Clients are referred to as muppets, to rip their eyeballs out and getting paid by getting clients to trade regardless of risk.
Is it surprising? Or is there anything new? This culture of greed and irresponsibility, unethical misconduct, is the wine that flows through Wall Streets and all the financial centres around the world. Govts too are caught up by this craze and greedily swim along. The greed of govts is no lesser than the greed of Wall Street financial cheats. They are sleeping partners of crime against the innocent investors who put all trust to these crooks they thought could be trusted and will ensure that the right things are done in the right way.
They believe morality is still a virgin. The truth is that morality has long been turned into a prostitute, sold into prostitution by the greed of these power brokers, the people they trusted most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)