Fake moral superiority or moral righteousness

The personal indiscretion of public figures is now the talk of the town (in the social media only) and receiving unnecessarily extra attention that should not be the case. And ministers have been pleading for privacy and to respect and protect the innocent parties like children and family members. Such calls for decency were a bit unnatural, hypocritical and not necessary when decency and privacy were respected in the past when others fell from grace due to such indiscretion. Many politicians left the scene quietly without anyone knowing what was happening, until Yaw Shin Long’s case.  Many ‘gooder’ than good people were asking for his blood, wanted to drag him through the mud. Must tell, must tell, for the sake of transparency and accountability, must tell all.

Who were the culprits or the most indecent ones calling for more details of such discretions to be aired in public just to score political points. Kee chiu please.

Humans are all subject to temptations of all kinds, greed, power, sex, corruption just to mention a few. It is human to err but what to do? The offenders often withdrew and felt guilty of what they had done which was enough a punishment. There is no need to rub it in with more salt or to make a public issue to embarrass the offenders. Whether one forgives the offender or otherwise is a personal choice.  And if it is a crime, the law would take its natural course. If it is a moral or ethical issue, the court of social justice and conscience would extract the price accordingly.

The most decent and honest man in this regard was Lee Kuan Yew. When faced with such an embarrassing situation, he said, ‘I do not expect my ministers to be celibate… but if it becomes an issue, they should just resign.’ This is as close to what he actually said then. He did not call for more accountability and details to be aired in the public. Several of his ministers just resigned and left quietly. It is a private matter to be dealt with by the affected parties, and legally if it is a legal issue.

Unfortunately we have more than righteous, holy and morally spotless people today to demand a public airing and dressing down for personal indiscretions. How decent are these people? I am not writing this to defend or protect the offenders.  Just cannot tahan the hypocrisy of rogues behaving like priests and angels. Wait for the day when they are in the shoes of the offenders.  Maybe they realized their past follies and are asking for privacy now for reasons that served their interests best.

Most seniors working past retirement did not suffer pay cut

I quote Leong Sze Hian from his article posted in the TRE.

‘I refer to the article “More in Singapore remaining in workforce past 65” (Straits Times, Mar 7).

98% who continued working beyond 62 did not suffer any basic wage cut

It states that “”Nearly all who approached 62 are offered re-employment.

“Most do not suffer any cut to their basic pay if they continue on the same job with the same job scope and responsibilities.”

In 2014, 98 per cent who continued working beyond the age of 62 did not suffer any basic wage cut, with about 10 per cent earning higher wages.”

Why are these seniors so lucky? I think many are working as cleaners, security guards, or like what Leong Sze Hian said, as operators or service/sales workers. These are jobs that many Singaporeans shunned and also paid very lowly. There is no way for the employers to lower the pay further and to think of being able to hire more of such workers. In fact many cleaners and security guards are getting raises instead of pay cuts.

So you see what the statistics are saying? What about the PMETs who ended up as self employed bosses driving taxis? Are they part of the statistics for employment? Also, read carefully, it is all about ‘re employment’ not new employment. A PMET joining the workforce as a security guard may not be called ‘re employment’.  ‘Re employment’ means being reemployed in the same job. So if one is employed first time as a security guard, it is new employment, no count. But once employed as a security guard and reemployed as a security guard, like that can count.

This is just one possible explanation to make the statistics make sense. Please feel free to disagree with me.

PAP sending their strongest candidate to Bukit Batok

According to one Ajay’s article posted in the TOC, PAP will be sending their strongest candidate to Bukit Batok for the by election. And this candidate is Muralidharan Pillai. Who said minority candidate sure to lose and needs to get in through a GRC? This is what Ajay wrote,

‘Their candidate of choice is likely to be lawyer Mr K. Muralidharan Pillai, a long-time PAP activist, who contested in Aljunied GRC in the last General Election (GE) and was part of the PAP team that lost narrowly, garnering 49% of total votes. Mr Murali also defeated the incumbent MP, Mr Chen Show Mao of the Workers’ Party in his Paya Lebar ward. Mr Murali is likely to be chosen because he has been battle-tested in an opposition ward and more importantly, used to serve in Bukit Batok as the PAP branch secretary before he was transferred to Aljunied GRC. He has a strong connection with the PA grassroots in Bukit Batok since he served there for 15 years, participated in many activities and helmed many committees.’

Not only that, Bukit Batok is PAP’s stronghold and Tharman has a very strong influence in the ward and winning it back for the PAP would be like a cake walk. What’s more, and ‘all the PAP had to do to win, was to use Dr Chee’s past baggage to finish him off,’ said Ajay. He forgot to add that Muralidharan was also very hardworking, and ‘has a strong connection with the PA grassroots in Bukit Batok’ to his credit.

Looks like Chee Soon Juan would be fighting an uphill battle in this by election. With the PAP being so strong, even with Paul Tambyah’s help, it is still a tough call. And to make things even harder, the independent candidate in the last GE, Samir Salim Neji may join in the fun to make things more interesting and more difficult for Chee.

And this could be a test case to prove the myth that minority candidate cannot wind an election on their own merits against a candidate from the ethnic majority.  If Muralidharan were to defeat Chee Soon Juan, would the PAP scrap the GRC scheme or would they said this is another miracle or another one in 50 year incident?

Would it make SDP’s chance brighter if it were to field Paul Tambyah instead? Would it be a fairer fight?

What do you think? Ajay is very confident of a PAP trouncing of the SDP.

Korea – Who is the maddest of them all?

The answer is so simple. It must be the North Koreans. See, they keep on testing the patients of the Americans and the South Koreans, developing nuclear weapons and testing missiles and threatening to use them.  Is that your final answer? Want to call your papa or mama, or your girlfriend?

It is so easy to be misled by the media with an agenda when one is lazy and refuses to think. Everyone reading the western media, including our local media will come up with the same answer, the North Koreans are mad, crazy, irresponsible, going to start a war any moment?

Put yourself in the shoes of the North Koreans and ask why they are doing what they are doing? The fear of an invasion by the combined forces of the American Empire plus the Japanese and South Koreans is very real. The only means of defence to the North Koreans is to ensure they have a very powerful armed forces, and that is not all, to possess nuclear weapons with a second strike capability. The fact that North Korea is not invaded still is that they have the capability to deliver a nuclear strike, maybe not to the USA yet, but no problem hitting Tokyo and other major Japanese cities and the whole of South Korea. The fact that they did not do it said it clearly, they are no fools.

An attack on the South would bring in the Americans and would put an end to the North Korean regime. This is as sure as the sun will rise the next morning. North Korea will be minced meat if a war starts tomorrow. Now, why would the North Koreans want to court their own disaster? Only fools would think they would.

And two countries were invaded for exactly not having nuclear weapons, Iraq and Libya. Would the Americans dare to invade Iran or North Korea?  No they would not. But they would want the South Koreans and the Japanese to do so, so that they would kill each other while the Americans gave them full support from behind, from afar.  This is as good as you die first.

The question again, who is the maddest of them all? Why are the Americans, South Koreans and the Japanese so adamant to want to provoke the North Koreans and knowing that when pushed to a corner, if there is an outbreak of war, they would be the first to be nuked by the North Koreans? The North Koreans may beat the war drums when provoked but would not risk a war and invite their own destruction. They are smarter than you. It is the Americans that want to provoke the North Koreans to fight. And who would suffer most other than the North Koreans? No prizes for the right answer.

No the North Koreans are not mad. No the Americans are not mad. So who is the mad one that wants to have a war with the North Koreans and invite their own destruction? Again, no prizes for the correct answer.  Everyone knows who is the maddest of them all.

The answer, you, the one who thinks the North Koreans are mad? Who wants war and who stands to benefit the most from this war? Who is the puppeteer?

A Constitutional Commission to prevent rogue immortals in Parliament

While the Constitutional Commission is mulling over what they should do to prevent a rogue Elected President, there is now a more urgent task, to prevent rogues for entering the Parliament. The temptation of lust is just too great when powerful men are rich, adorable, lovable and touchable and easily accessible. How to prevent this oldest temptation of man to happen in our squeaking clean Parliament where everyone is as pure and clean as a priest or a monk, or immortal?

I can think of the principles behind the solution to prevent corruption. Pay them enough not to want to corrupt? Would this principle be applicable, workable or effective in keeping immortals from the temptation of the flesh? Give them enough to eat, just like the lions, once well fed, they would not want to hunt and to kill, until they are hungry again.

If this solution is not workable, then another Constitutional Commission may be necessary. The big question or problem would be the composition of the commission members? What kind of people would be suitably qualified to sit in such a morally righteous commission to pass moral judgement on what is acceptable and unacceptable and what should be done to keep man from sin?

Obviously we need the holy ones, the pious ones, the religious ones, to be up to it to execute such a task, to lay down the ground rules and regulations to protect the Parliament from rogue immortals. Just look around for people walking around with a halo on their heads. That would be a good start.

Should the govt order another Constitutional Commission for this, or apply the same principles and solution for corruption? This is also a kind of corruption isn’t it?

In the Today forum page, some forumers were asking for more transparency and details. They must have learnt from past public comments on how important it is to come out clean, to tell the truth and everything. This is the standard of political culture here when Yaw Shing Loong was exposed. Everyone wanted to know the juicy details in the name of transparency and ‘the right to know what exactly went wrong…’

Is that the way to go?  Tharman had said the right thing. ‘I think he needs some private space now and that’s something for him to decide in the goodness of time. That’s something he’s already made a statement on and we’ve stated our position on it quite clearly as well.’ This must be the new official position of the PAP govt. I don’t think anyone in the PAP camp would be asking for more transparency and details again.  And I think this position would also apply to opposition politicians when they are caught with their pants down in future.

Chan Chun Sing also had similar views about privacy. He ‘called for restraint, toi protect the children involved in the case.’ Not sure if this restraint would apply when there is no children involved.

Transparency for one and for all. Privacy for one and for all. This is only decent to do. No one upmanship like public figures must drop their pants to show everything. The opposition politicians can now breathe easier with this kind of position and precedence and standard set by the PAP govt.