GE 2015/16 issues for the voters to consider – Issue 1 - Freedom to information

This is the first part of a series of issues that I would be writing about for the coming GE. I would deal with one issue at a time and put it simple and short for brevity and easier for the voters to remember.

The main question is who would the people want to vote for?  The first issue is about the right to information. Would the voters want to vote for a govt that want to decide on what they can see, read, hear or say? Is this simple enough?

Do you want to vote for a govt that dictates to you what you can or cannot read, what you can or cannot see, what you can or cannot say? In other words, would you vote for a govt that wants to control you, control your thoughts? Do you want to be controlled by the people you elect to be the govt?

Think about it.

Control the people’s thinking

Related to my post ofn Freedom to information, there is this big issue of modifying behavioural thinking in the media today. Peter Ong, the Head of Civil Service, touched on the discussions in the social media. He said policymakers would need to study human behaviour, particularly in the social media, to nudge the discussion in the right direction. To do this, the first few postings would normally set the trend and tempo of a discussion, ie you can control the discussion.

So, by getting in early, the trend of thoughts in a discussion could be guided and modified in a way to suit the intent of the people wanting to lead a discussion. It is all about behavioural control.

What is missing in this line of thought, similar to those who claimed that everything can be explained away with good communication, is that the advocates are trying to treat a symptom but not the cause. If there is no cause, if govt policies are right and good for the people, there would be no need for opposing views and negativity. If policies are wrong, no amount of explanation can change that, no amount of behavioural modifications or control can change that. Any change would be momentary, when a clever argument may pull wool over the eyes for a short while. But the bad policies stayed and would still invoke objections and opposition when the wool is removed.

The crux of the matter is to get the policies right, administer policies that are good for the people, not silly policies pushed through by applying power logic. So many policies in housing that were silly and against the interests of the people were pushed through and have to be rectified but not before doing so much harm to the people. In a way, Murphy’s Law is also applicable to bad policies. Bad policies are bad policies and would bounce back at the face of the policymakers in a matter of time. You cannot get away with bad policies. No amount of foolish and contrived explanations or behavioural modifications can change a bad policy to a good policy.

There is one condition that may make it an exception. Use of power logic. Use of power to impose on the people, shaft it down their throats like before. Oh, there is also another assumption that may make such a thinking works for a while, if the people are really daft and cannot see the difference between what is good or bad for them.

Power logic and behavioural control are just that. Nothing is changed, bad policy is bad policy. It would be wiser to go to the root cause of the problem and save the need to explain what cannot be explained away, or to modify people’s behaviour and thinking that it would work.

You can bluff the people all the time. You can’t bluff the people and get away with it forever.

Beware of your pockets

If the forum pages of the main media are an indication of what is over the horizon, I am fearful of what is in the pipeline. The main media has rightly been perceived as the sounding board for the govt policies, what the govt has in mind are often tested first in the media for a ground feel or to signal what is coming next. And the preview could lessen the impact when policies are implemented with the people mentally prepared for the shock.

The last few days the signals are for higher cost of water consumption and hitting hard on car ownership. Two foreigners, I am guessing from their names, likely new citizens or PRs, one a Dr Asit K Biswa and a Cecilia Tottajada, wrote to the ST forum that the cost of water was too low, or cheap and it was time to tighten the tap on cheap water to reduce consumption. Another comment, not sure if it was from the same two, ‘the price of water has not increased since 2000’.

See the reasoning for the increase? So long never increase so much increase. The other reason, must increase price to cut down on consumption. Aren’t the people already paying too much for water with different kinds of water conservation taxes? Not enough, still want to increase? And the reason is to cut down on consumption. Did they know the history of water pricing and the cost of water instead of gut feel of cheap or expensive, based on what, market mechanism?

Hey professori from whatever university, I already limit myself to take bath once a week to cut down on water usage. Not enough? And I only brush teeth once in two days. And I also use used water to flush the toilet bowl, which means the water is used several times before flushing down the drain. Do you know or not? It is so easy to talk about cutting down consumption. Tell the poor worker to cut down on food consumption lah. But make sure you know how many meals he is taking and what he is taking in the first place. If the guy is already taking plain bread or plain porridge and only two times a day, how much more to you want him to cut down? You think everyone eat like a pig, 5 meals a day? You think everyone is hosing water on their cars?

Do these so called academics know what they are talking?

And the other call, not by an academic I think, to reduce car usage, is to make car use prohibitive. What a moron. The next thing, to manage the use of precious land, shrink the size of flats by half to make it painful. There are many people who must use car whether for work or for special needs. Using the car is a necessity and sometime unavoidable. And there are many small enterprises that need a car or they could not operate. Increase cost to make it prohibitive? I see shit coming out of the mouth.

But put these silly thinkers and comments aside. What is behind these calls, is it an indication of what is coming and the media or govt is preparing the ground for increase in water fees and more financial disincentives to car usage?

What are the real problems to water usage and car usage? What are the causes to high water usage and car population? You dunno meh? Think 10m or 6.9m. If the govt is crazy to keep pumping more people into this piece of rock, water will always be not enough and no matter how high the price is, the people would still need to use them. Fuck the pseudo academics. And so will be space for cars. 5m and we are so squeezed with so many cars, 6.9m and 10m, how would it affect car prices and car usage? Is this what we want? Is this for better quality of life? Prohibit car ownership, prohibit water consumption so that everyone would smell like a sweaty manual worker and cannot afford to bathe?

This is already one of the most expensive city to live in. Want to increase cost further by more stupid suggestions?

Amos Yee – Autism Spectrum Disease 人在做天在看

‘District Judge Jasvender Kaur today (23 Jun) ordered teenage blogger Amos Yee to be remanded for 2 weeks at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) to undergo a psychiatric assessment.
The court heard that an RTC report had found the 16-year-old physically and mentally fit to undergo reformative training. However, a report by Dr Munidasa Winslow also said that Amos may be suffering from autism-spectrum disorder.’ TRE Editorial 
What is this ASD? According to a psychiatrist interviewed by CNA, an Adrian Wong if I remember correctly, there are three signs to watch out for. Difficulties in reading or articulation, difficulties in relationship, and a kind of stubbornness in views on things. And generally almost everyone has such symptoms in varying degree. In my view, of course I am not a psychiatrist, I also can say maybe everyone has ASD. Tiok boh? 
Look around us, how many people did not have the three signs? Cannot speak properly, plenty of them. Have relationship problem with people, how many people did not have this problem? I will say none, everyone has some relationship problem with some people. Have a kind of stubbornness in views of things like insisting that Amos is sick when he is not. How many people are sticking to this sick view? I think in this case, everyone is suffering from ASD except Amos Yee. Yes Amos is the only normal one. 
Let me put up my justifications. Amos is extremely articulate, no problem with communication. Relationship with people, he is so friendly. See how he waved to everyone and smiling all the time despite being charged with this horrible crime? At his age, with the whole state machinery and a lot of sick people gunning him down, he has a mind of steel, standing rock solid and not breaking. This is a sign of a very emotionally strong person. Many people would have broken down. Not Amos Yee. It is the other people that are having relationship problems, and with him. It is not Amos having problems with other people. And all those people are sickly sticking to an obtuse view about Amos that the UNHCHR and HRW are saying all hogwash. There is nothing wrong with Amos Yee. He is a healthy young boy and behaving like many young boys of his age and intelligence. 
How, my justifications can jalan or not? Reasonable or not? And Amos is fit for Reformative Training but suffering from ASD? Tiok boh? Like also can? If Amos has relationship problems with people, how can he be but put in the same confines with troublesome youth in the Reformative Centre? Would they not murder him since Amos cannot get along with them? Is it the right thing to do? Oops, wrong question to ask about right or wrong thing. 
I think everyone should be sent for Mandatory Treatment Order instead of Amos Yee. In my view, not the view of a psychiatrist, everyone is sick except Amos. Just my layman’s view.  
Please, disagree with me as much as you like. I am not an authority on this ASD thing.

Mahathir declares Langkawi a new nation

News Flash--Mahathir bought Langkawi island for new Nation

Now, he can build his crooked bridge n treat the kampong folks as their medical director apart from landlord (King Mahathir).

Mahathir said he had bought the island from the Sultan of Kedah for an undisclosed sum and has declared it as an independent state.

Who is cheating the Malays of their inheritance, if this is true?

Can someone verify this? If true he can joined his nemesis in the club of founding nation members.

PS. GiGo confirmed it is a joke.