Video

Hypocrisy and War Crimes: The Western Imperium

by Robert S. Rodvik

The U.S. has a long history of unleashing chemical and biological warfare against civilians both abroad and at home, primarily as an experiment but also to get rid of outdated stockpiles while inventing a villain to crucify. Canadian author Robert Rodvik rips into Barack Obama for hypocritically warning Syria against its alleged use of chemical weapons and lambastes his own country which, from a potential U.S. target, turned into a U.S. accomplice in the chemical warfare waged against the Vietnamese people.

Voltaire Network | 11 November 2012

Punggol East By Election 26 January.

SINGAPORE: A by-election will be held for Punggol East Single-Member Constituency (SMC), after Member of Parliament Michael Palmer resigned over an extra-marital affair.

Nomination Day will be held on 16 January 2013. If more than one candidate stand for nominations on Nomination Day, Polling Day will be held on 26 January 2013. Polling Day will not be a public holiday....

The above is announced in Channel News Asia.

Easy path to corporate success

The trial of SCDF chief is scheduled next month. Another case of the police chief is in process. Fortunately the Speaker’s case need not go to court. The common factor of all three cases is feminine wiles or sex. This is one of the oldest tricks used by the fairer sex for personal advancement, for promotion, contracts or favours. Some have used this so successfully that they would go around encouraging other less able and simple minded women to do the same. Search around for powerful and successful men, lean on the men, and be rewarded. The association, to be seen around powerful and successful men, to be known as these men’s companions is itself a reward. Women with no confidence of their own ability will become easy prey to such enticements. Not much effort needed, just give them what they want. Be nice to them.

This prompted me to take a look at the stockbroking industry. The stock broking profession is safe, I think, from such feminine exploits, for throwing themselves to management would not get one a promotion or a big contract. Maybe a few inactive clients or names of walk in clients will be the best they could get. Not worth the pound of flesh. Offering to successful traders or remisier kings may be equally futile. In one sense, there is no remisier king left, though there are still some quite successful ones around.

Those still in the industry are all in the same sinking boat. And their intelligence or stupidity in stock picks will be as good as that of those thinking of currying their favour. Some dimwits would be easily impressed by a few success stories. But it is common knowledge that for each success story there will be tens or more of failures.

Would there be the dumb blonds looking for successful big names to lean on, or to think it is an honour to be associated? I doubt so. They are not that daft to think of worshipping gods when they should be working to be gods themselves.

The easy path to corporate success is definitely not applicable to the stock broking industry. To be successful, one just has to prove it on one’s own merit, not on other people’s merits or by association. There would be no sensational news of Cecilia or Stella to boot in the stock broking industry.

Taking AIM into the wilderness

The AIM saga is not going to go away. First impression, if it counts, is that it is in muddy waters. There are so many things that the general public do not think were right and the stench is getting foul as the days go by.

On the PAP side, several efforts were made by Teo Ho Pin, Chandra Das and a minister in Grace Fu to explain that everything is in order. Unfortunately the explanations only helped to muddy the water even more and people listening to the explanations are getting exasperated. It is something that cannot be explained away. It is like the proverbial elephant that is too big to be covered up.

Three presidential candidates in the last Presidential Election have all chipped in to air their dissatisfaction over the whole saga. This can only mean that they were in agreement that something is not right. The only presidential candidate that became the President has yet to say anything. Perhaps he disagrees with the other three and did not see anything wrong with the AIM. Until the President speaks, no one would know what he is thinking and his position on this matter. Maybe it is a matter that should not involve the President.

What would be the likely outcome of this episode? So far the official explanation is not cutting any ice. Could more explanations help, or it is already a failed cause? If this is a failed cause, how would it affect the PAP’s standing and its performance in the next GE?

Or would the PAP bite the bullet, conduct an inquiry and sacrifice a few heads to redeem itself? I wrote this yesterday and this morning read the papers that Hsien Loong has called for an inquiry. After the last GE a few ministerial heads rolled. Would this episode lead to similar results?

As I said in my first posting on this subject, Teo Ho Pin’s explanation will have great consequences to the eventual outcome of this episode. What the public have been told so far is that public money was spent to develop a management programme and this is sold to AIM which is a PAP organisation. And AIM is making money by charging a fee to the Town Councils, and the people are paying for it. Is this the right perception?

Public institution or political organization

The AIM saga has led many to question the nature of Town Councils. Are TCs public institutions or are they political organizations? This also brings to question whether the People’s Association is a public institution or a political organization. According to Tan Cheng Bock, TCs are public institutions. Baey Yam Keng said otherwise, that they are political organizations and the AIM saga has been over politicized. Should not that be the case since they are political organizations?

What are the differences between a political organization and a public institution? There are many and very obvious differences without having to split hairs. Academics may have a long list of definitions or what is and what is not. I would simply lay out a few cogent points of what is a public institution and what is not.

A public institution is often formed to serve the interests of the public in general, not a particular group or political party. It draws its funds from the public or from the govt. It is has no links to any political party. These should be brief and easy to understand. Political organizations are simply organizations of political parties to serve party interests.

An organization that is paid by the public or by public funds from the govt should be a public institution. Political organizations that serve the interests of political parties must not be paid by public fund or the govt. There is a big grey area that need not be grey at all, that is the govt. The govt is made up of political parties, singular or a coalition. They are political parties first and the govt second. It could be the other way round. The govt is to serve the general public of all political colours. But this is easier said than done. Most govt will look at party interests first and public interests second for self preservation and selfish interests. Ideally, political parties should shed their politics when elected to form the govt and serve the public at large as one people of one country. I said ideally, and I am asking too much. Even immortals will be biased to favour party interests than public interests.

The govt aside, should TCs be public institutions or political organizations? Likewise, is the PA a public institution or political organization? Who is footing the bill? Who pays their salaries and activities? The govt using public fund or the political party using party fund?