Appointed president to elected president to appointed president

The issue of whether the current elected president system should be retained or changed is becoming a hot topic for discussion in Parliament and in the net. Why is this an issue now given that this was the best system introduced only a few years back, thought through by the super talents? Now it seems that this is no longer the best system, a stupid system, and there is an urgent need to tweak it. Before tweaking this, maybe we should go back one step further to know why there was a need to tweak the appointed president system to an elected president system.

I remembered that there was a fear that the appointed president was purely ceremonial and cannot check a rogue govt that may spend away the nation’s reserves.  They forgot that there was no need for a president to check on a rogue govt when it is appointed by the rogue govt. They should all be together in the rogue camp. So the idea of an elected president holding a second key can say no to a rogue govt, can refuse to open the reserves was born. Wasn’t this clever? Wasn’t this a well thought out scheme? Now who is saying that this is a hare brain scheme and needs to be tweaked because they forgot that the president could be a rogue president that would give trouble and pain to a good govt that needs to open the reserve but the rogue president says no? Don’t ask me why they did not think of this. Maybe the only assumption then was a rogue govt that needed a good president to cheque on them and not the possibility of having a rogue president that needed to be chequed.

Not the dire situation is a rogue president making life difficult for a good govt is going to happen. So how, go back to the old system of an appointed ceremonial president that is nice to the incumbent govt and they will all work happily together chequing each other. Like that sure no problem…unless both the appointed president and the incumbent govt are rogues. Then finish leow. But this is unlikely, to have a rogue govt appointing a rogue president. Our political system has been carefully designed and fine tuned to ensure that rogues will not be elected to govern this island, only righteous, honourable and selfless men and women will be selected and elected. The citizens cannot be so daft to elect rogues to form the govt right?  A 70% majority must be right. Can we trust our highly educated citizens to be daft and to elect rogues to form the govt?

Come to think of it this may be possible if the assumption that Singaporeans are daft is true. Singaporeans are famed for being daft, for allowing foreigners to come in and steal their jobs and never complain, accepting that this is the right thing, the good thing, because they cannot see anything further than the tip of their nose. They did not know what is going on around them.

Maybe before tweaking the elected president, I have a better idea. Create a third key. The third key can be held by an elected senior president or an elected COI, Committee of Inquisition, to cheque on the elected president and his second key. When two keys cannot work, not enough security, have a third key. Like that sure can work. And if the third key still cannot work, set up a senate of senior citizens. This one, the senior citizens must all be ex senior civil servants or ex ministers. Like that sure powerful enough to cheque on the elected president and senior elected president.

My idea can jalan or not?

Singapore Education 2016 v1.0

With two young ministers fresh from the election oven put in charge of education, things are going to be hot and exciting. A one minister ministry may find the excuse of being overloaded and no time to do much, two ministers mean a lot of spare capacity to do more, to do new things. In the media on 20 Dec, it was reported that changes will take place in the next 5 years to revamp primary school education to scale down emphasis on academic results and to provide more time for students to pursue their interests in and out of schools.

Why the change? The media reported that the policy came amid expectations from educators, parents and the pupils to revamp the current system based strongly on academic results. I read this simply that the new education policy is determined by the educators, parents and the pupils, what they want the education to be. Fair enough, and the ministers are just appeasing them, and must agree with them. It must be, for if the ministers have different ideas of what education of children is like, they would want their views to be part of the input. Then the education policy will be the result of the expectations of the ministers, educators, parents and the pupils.

As the changes are for primary education, I think it is fair and harmless. The educators, parents and pupils and the ministers can decide what they like for the children. What about secondary and higher education? Who should determine what higher education should be like, to meet whose expectations? Should the policies of higher education be determined by the expectations of the professors in the academia, the parents, the students and the ministers? Or should they also include the expectations of the employers, what the employers want and expect from the education system? Would the expectations of the employers be the most important element in determining what higher education and its products to be like as they are the ultimate users of the products of the education system? If not, they may say, no relevant skill sets, unusable, need to find those with relevant skill sets in less pretentious schools from the 3^rd world villages. Then our graduates would end up as temp job seekers or selling hamburgers at fast food joints. Then how?

A mismatch will be obvious if the policy of higher education is to meet the expectations of parents and students, or even the academics when their interests and expectations could be totally misaligned with the expectations of the employers.

While the policy of primary education is changing, I hope they will invite the employers to have a say as to what they want from the education system and we don’t end up with misfits from the higher education system that are not what the employers want. We are having this problem now, and some are very serious ones like the dearth of IT and banking and finance talents that no one seems to be responsible or accountable for it.  At primary level the blame can be put to the parents and students for wanting to have a fairy tale education disconnected with the realities of adult education and employment. At higher education, there is no luxury to mess around with the pragmatic and functional objectives of education.

The victims of past flirtations with dysfunctional education models and policies that are detached from the realities of adult life and leading to the lost generations of talents for IT and banking and finance industries must not be allowed to be repeated.  No more fooling around please. Education of the young is a very serious matter and there is a big divide between education for education’s sake, education that parents and students would love to have, and education to earn a living, education to meet the needs of the industries.

PS. I will love to decide my own education, read whatever I like, no exam, have a lot of fun and experimenting, if I don’t have to work for a living.

Watch out for Islamophobia – Shanmugam

This is the first time that a minister found it dire enough to use the word Islamophobia in an official statement. I was getting a bit edgy with Veritas spouting this word daily and over and over again in my blog and the presence of a radicalized extremist attacking him and anyone using this word. I know this is a very sensitive word and some would find it offensive to use it so freely. The sympathizers of Islam related terrorism will be ready to accuse people condemning Islamofascists as inciting religious intolerance.

In the Mypaper dated 20 Jan, Walter Sim wrote his piece with the title ‘Shanmugam: Watch out for Islamophobia’. This is like the saying, calling a spade a spade. Islamophobia and terrorism are the inseparable twins in today’s international affairs on terrorism. It is good that the Minister say it as it is without mincing a tone. Islamophobia and terrorism are the greatest threat in the world today, and Singapore, being an open country, would not escape being hit or being spared. It is a matter of when and where. It is a near impossibility for the men in blue and the intelligence people to keep a tight lid on a threat that is so widespread and could be easily executed by an individual coming out from no where.

While highlighting the threat, Shanmugam also cautioned the people not to be over sensitive and go into a blind rage. The threats of Islamophobia and terrorism are the acts of a very small minority of anti Muslims paranoids and some Muslims that have been radicalized and have a very different world view of things. According to Shanmugam, ‘Our very existence as one of the most religiously diverse and tolerant societies in the world, where mosques, churches and temples are situated side by side, - this is unacceptable to the zealots. They consider us infidels who ought to be exterminated.’

While everyone should be aware of the seriousness of this threat and the imminence of it happening here, we must be careful, cautious and sensitive to the majority of the Muslims that are also our brothers and sisters and have no part in this Islamophobia and terrorism. We need to close ranks with them and keep our city state peaceful and safe for everyone, for our families and children.

This is not about intolerance or tolerance but being clear in who are the real trouble makers and not to taint everyone, the innocence, in a broad brush. It is like in any groupings or communities there will be the black sheep and trouble makers in their midst.

Why is SGX’s commission rate so low?

The commission rate for buying and selling shares in the SGX is between 0.3% -0.5%. For high net worth clients, some are charging 0.15% to 0.25%. Heard some super clever brokerages are charging disgraceful commission rates that are as good as free.

We have heard all the silly reasons why commission rates have to be low because we are competing for business in a globalised world and also competing one brokerage against another. Sounds so logical and with good business sense. The lower one cuts the commission rate, the bigger will be the market share and the more profitable will be the business. Let me quote the commission rates of some major stock exchanges that Singaporeans are likely to be interested to know.

1.     Hongkong – 0.25%

2.     Malaysia – 0.85%

3.     Australia, Europe, USA, UK, Japan, Shenzhen, Thailand, Taiwan, Indonesia – all at 1%

Looks like the only country that Singapore is competing for business based on lower commission rate is Hongkong. The rest of the world still charge 1%. Even Malaysia is charging 0.85%.

What is happening? Why like that one? Why are the rest of the world still doing their business as usual at 1% commission rate and did not lose their business to our near to free commission rate? Should not the rest of the world be rushing here to trade in the Singapore stock market or in the Hongkong stock market when the commission rates are the cheapest compared to their 1%?

Shhhhhhh, genius at work. Geniuses think like geniuses. They know things that no one else know. Just give them time. In the long run everything will be ok. The Singapore stock market is doing fine, real fine. Even the brokerages are doing real fine. And there is no need for remisiers or dealers. The stock market is designed that way. So the exodus of remisiers and dealers out of the industry is just normal.

Low commission rate is competitive and is good for business. Why is it that our stock market is now known as a moribund stock market, waiting to close shop, with remisiers and dealers leaving the industry? Maybe Singapore’s commission rate is still too high and can go lower to gain more market share and to bring the stock market to life again. Come to think of it, this must be the reason. The commission rate can go lower and the market will be roaring to life.

Yes, cut commission rate further.  That is the way to go. This is the only solution I can think of to revive the business and the dying stock market. More people will start trading in stocks again. We can promote stock trading among the children too with no commission. Make our stock market the cheapest stock market in the world, not because the stocks are cheap but because the commission rate is negligible, is the cheapest in the world. The whole world will be rushing to trade in our stock market. Cheap, cheap, cheap. Lelong. The big Singapore Sale!

All those countries still insisting on 1% commission rate will soon go out of business if they did not cut their commission rates to stay competitive, and all their businesses will land up in this island. The future is so bright.

No one owes you a living

It is so easy to utter such a comment when one has millions in the bank account, oops I mean many millions and many bank accounts, and many multi million dollar landed properties. Might as well say ‘you die your business’, who cares? KNN, if I have so many millions I might also say such darn things to the losers in life. It is only natural when one is rich and comfortable to shit on the losers. Human nature is like that. Only when they are in the same shit hole then they will say ‘let’s stand together as one and fight together as one’.

Tony Tan in his Parliamentary Speech talked about the threats from the Islamic State and terrorism. And several ministers came out to say Singaporeans must unite and stand together to fight against terrorism. The slight problem here is that the people are so divided by how much they earned and how much they have that they have become water and oil. There are people living in $50m or $100m bungalows and people living in 2rm and 3rm flats that they could not afford to pay and only hope that they could pay up in 30 years if they continue to have a job. Would the rich and the poor think the same, to fight together against terrorism regardless of how many millions they had in their bank accounts or how many dollars left inside their pockets, not enough for the next meal? Or would the losers turn around and say, ‘no one owes you a living’.  You so rich you go and fight and defend your millions and your multi million dollar properties?

What about the millions of foreigners that are here taking the good jobs from the citizens and beating up citizens when they are unhappy? Are they going to help out in defending the citizens against terrorism? Or are the citizens supposed to defend, fight and die for these foreigners?

We have a fractured and fragmented society to the extent that to each his own, you die your business are the new normal. No one owes you a living is the mantra of the day. It applies both ways, not just one way.

What terrorism? What have the losers got to defend for, what have they got to lose? ‘Everyone has a part to play to keep Singapore and Singaporean safe’. What is that? And Vivian said, ‘The rise of nationalism, protectionism and the polarization of society in many regional countries have further exacerbated the challenges faced by Singapore.’ But these are other people’s problems. Singapore does not believe in nationalism, in protectionism, we believe in a borderless country, everyone can come here to live and work and to live in harmony. Singaporeans will protect them, their wealth and safety, even if these foreigners feel free to bash up Singaporeans for fun or for whatever reasons.

Singapore is a united people, foreigners and citizens will be protected from harm, from terrorism. Singaporeans will unite and stand together to fight terrorism. Not sure if the foreigners here think the same way.

How many people will be shouting, ‘You die your business’? How many people will be shouting,‘No one owes you a living’? How many people will be shouting, ‘Let’s stand together and fight together’?

Would the electorate vote for a politician to tell them he does not owe you a living? Why would the voters vote for someone to be paid in the millions only to hear him say, ‘No one owes you a living’?