Bukit Batok by election – Who to win?

One gave 10 reasons why Chee Soon Juan should win and one said otherwise with 10 reasons to back up. Let me put a few reasons why Chee should win despite the odds and the bad showing of SDP in the GE. The most important reason is God’s will. Heaven is on the side of SDP and Chee Soon Juan. When God is helping him, there is no obstacle that cannot be overcome.  Ok, I am using God’s will for convenience. I could have used feng shui and the name Bukit Buttock to justify my argument. Maybe some other time.

The first point, there is no chance for Chee or anyone to get into Parliament until the next GE. It needs a little miracle or indiscretion to force a rerun. And this rerun can be anywhere, in any constituency, in a GRC. But it has to be in a SMC and in Bukit Batok, not in any other SMC. And when it comes to Bukit Batok, the only candidate that has been working so hard for so many years is Chee Soon Juan. Why not the last SDP candidate that ran for the GE? This is a by election and only the best candidate will do, and PAP is putting up its best candidate, the very best candidate in its stable of candidate. Murali Pillai is the best the PAP has and putting up anyone in SDP will get an even bigger rubbing. See the hands of God at work?

Even the by election is crafted in Chee’s name. No one is calling it a Murali by election. It is called a Chee by election. Don’t have naughty ideas please. It is all about Chee Soon Juan, the come back kid.

And of course this is not going to be easy and PAP would make it even harder. The PAP is going to put up its best and most hardworking candidate supported by the whole PAP machinery to win this by election. Murali is even more hardworking than David Ong, and have excellent relations with the grassroots. According to Tharman, an old auntie was asking for him to come back to serve Bukit Batok.

But there is a catch that many people did not see. PAP is like giving away this by election, conceding an own goal before it even started. How’s that, many of you would not get it. PAP is putting its very best, how to concede an own goal?

Think GRC? Why GRC? There were two key assumptions when the concept of GRC was mooted. To ensure minority representation in Parliament through GRC. Why? One, minority candidates are weaker. Two, the voters would vote on racial grounds. So minority candidates would stand on weak grounds and fighting in SMC is a losing proposition. Then why put up a minority candidate in Bukit Batok? So he is the best candidate, though a minority. This part is like saying my logic is ‘head I win, tail you lose’.  Heard of ‘mao矛 dun 盾’? So what if Murali is the strongest minority candidate, and that he is better than a majority candidate? The people would still vote on racial ground he sure to lose. This kind of logic, not I say one huh. I only parrot this clever logic.

But now things have changed. According to Tharman and other PAP politicians, the voters are smart and not racist, and would not vote on racial ground. This argument I also parrot.  Not I say one, not my logic. Head I win, tail you lose.

If this logic is true, if things have changed, the voters have matured, not daft anymore, not racist, it must mean that there is no need for GRCs anymore. True or not? If PAP believes in this logic, there must come out with an amendment in Parliament that henceforth there is no need for GRCs and all will be single wards.

Would the PAP do this? If not, then it must mean they don’t believe the people will not vote on racial grounds. Then Murali will be a sacrificial lamb.  Tiok or not? Do I sound logical or illogical? I am just trying to practice the art of ‘mao dun’.

Incidentally, for those who are still guessing what is this art called ‘mao dun’, let me explain. It is about a super talented salesman trying to sell his spears and his shields. He claimed that his spears were the best and can penetrate through any shield. Then he also claimed his shields were world best and no spears could penetrate them. One time said could poke through, one time said could not poke through. Which is right?  Some one asked what would happen if his spear would to be used against his shield? This was how the phrase ‘mao dun’ came about. ‘Mao’ is spear in Chinese, and ‘dun’ is shield.

So what do you think of this ‘mao dun’ logic and the chances of Murali against Chee? Is Murali put there to win or to lose? I just find the ‘mao dun’ logic of fielding Murali a bit difficult to accept and thus conclude that Chee should win. I may be wrong, because I am not a super talent and therefore unable to understand the logic of super talents.

So, Chee wins or Murali wins?

Singapore Fooled AGAIN By 2016 World University Rankings

 

By MIKOspace

Singapore Retains Brand of Questionable Authenticity

Need to Restore Authenticity and Integrity in Our Universities

Once again, 2 of Singapore’s top 4 Universities are ranked among the global top 10 for 15 subjects, according to the 2016 Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings by Subjects.  The National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) are at top 10 in the QS 2016 World University Rankings just-released by Quacquarelli Symonds (QS).  And since only UK and US Universities were ranked better, it means that Singapore NUS and NTU are the best Universities in Asia.

The other 2 Universities, the Singapore Management University (SMU) and SIM University, did not participate in “The Big Lie” propagated by such annual beauty contests of Universities.

See:  Singapore in Fraudulent 2015 World Universities Rankings

And yes, this is the same QS Ranker whose annual QS World University Ranking was condemned by eminent Chicago University Professor Brian Leiter, Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values, as “a fraud on the public”.   Another scholar, Professor Simon Marginson, an eminent scholar in international higher education, had also criticized “QS simply doesn’t do as good a job as the other rankers that are using multiple indicators”.  

It is common knowledge that QS methodology contains serious fundamental conceptual and methodological flaws to render QS Rankings practically useless, irrelevant and immaterial for any serious educational policy purpose.  Under scrutiny, the QS Ranking Methodology should have failed to withstand the penetrative professional scrutiny of truly Top Academics and Research Institutions like NTU and NUS, who instead now endorse the spurious Rankings results so as to position themselves dishonestly in full knowledge of the lack of validity and reliability of their proxy measures and methodology.

In return for dancing and cavorting with bogus University Rankers like QS and THE, we received for our legacy excellent Universities a Brand of Questionable Authenticity. This is a disservice to Singapore and Singaporeans.

By embracing misleading University Rankers like QS and THE, NTU and NUS administrators, senior manager and Professors have been disingenuous and unprincipled in conferring legitimacy on the meaningless results of what essentially are bogus ranking standards of dubious University excellence. 

The successful Annual seduction of NTU and NUS by “beauty contest” University rankings can only be attributed to either sheer mindless stupidity, or the abject ignorance of rigorous, sophisticated and transparent scientific research methods.

In fact, one of QS’ competitors, the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Ranker, had in fact pointed out that QS employed a “very, very weak and simplistic methodology” to assess universities worldwide.  According to THE, the QS’ “weak” methodology has actually ranked undeserving Malaysian Universities to be of world-class status when they were “way off” from being so, and thereby gave Malaysian education authority an “over-optimistic, distorted” idea of how local varsities actually fare.

All the World University Rankers use different factors and criteria to “measure” University excellence. None has any scientific basis for their choice of proxies for University quality. None have in fact published their methodology nor subject it to the vigorous due diligence expected of a simple research paradigm. 

No wonder the United Nations education body, UNESCO, concluded that “these rankings are of dubious value, are underpinned by questionable social science, arbitrarily privilege particular indicators, and use shallow proxies as correlates of quality”.

Actually, QS themselves have "been surprised by the extent to which governments and university leaders use the rankings to set strategic targets. We at QS think this is wrong.  …" And added: "Ranks should not be a primary driver of university mission statements and visions.  …. "

NTU became a full-fledged University in 1991. It is noteworthy that by April 2001, NTU's research had resulted in 20 spin-off companies with many funded by venture firms, with 150 disclosures, 76 patents filed and 30 patents granted.  The research papers of its staff and students in refereed international journals also won numerous awards in international competitions and conferences. 

In the recent 8 years, NTU has re-directed its energy and resource to satisfy the bogus criteria/standard of dubious University excellence purveyed by Rankers such as QS and THE.  And as it improved on its meaningless Rankings on the QS and THE, its earlier highly visible impact of entrepreneurship, patents and innovations disappeared strangely from its list of true achievements.  These never returned.  

The impact of NTU and NUS on Singapore students and society cannot be measured by the degrees of newly ascribed dubious proxies of excellence defined by bogus “World University Ranking” Standards.  It can only be measured in terms of their contribution to the happiness and well-being of stakeholders and of the Singapore and global communities to which we belong and serve.

It is more important what we think of our own Universities and what they have achieved for our young people, our communities and our nation.  What foreigners think of us using irrelevant and bogus criteria should not make us unhappy.

A University’s contribution to society is its sufficient measure. The important thing is to let other people think whatever they want, and not to lose one’s self-esteem by letting others diminish the accolades of our genuine acclaims and true achievements, so that we can lend them our excellent reputation of authenticity and honesty to cover up their lack of credibility, validity and reliability. 

We should stop participating in any and all the fraudulent World Universities Rankings, so as to stop endorsing such bogus standards of dubious quality excellence.

Related:

Singapore in World Universities Rankings Fraud

Laws Broken for Top Universities Rankings

Singaporean Students and Professors Sacrificed for Top Universities Rankings

Why We Should Not Trust Global University League Tables

True Lies about World Universities Ranking     

Singapore NTU is Number 1 University

QS Ranking - A Fraud on the Public

Scrutiny of QS Universities Ranking

UNESCO - University Rankings of Dubious Value

Quoting and misquoting LKY’s legacy

On his first year anniversary, it is like LKY returning to life on the TV sets and appearing in every home. You see him, you hear him and you can feel him. He is shouting down into everyone his wisdoms and wise quotes. ‘Go chase the rainbow’, or ‘Do not mortgage the future of your children’.

It is so easy to parrot what LKY was saying like quoting verses from the bible, ‘Whoever believes in me shall have ever lasting life’. Many people are mouthing about living his legacies, and living his wisdoms. But in reality do these people really understand what LKY was saying, what were his intentions?  Or they took his legacy and wisdom and turned them upside down, turning his wise words into mockery, instead of doing good for the people, actually doing more harm than good?

When LKY talked about chasing the rainbow, he was talking to Singaporeans, the young and not so young. He was not talking to the foreigners. He wanted Singaporeans to be successful, to step on what he had built and get a lift to better things in life. It was never about foreigners. It was never about giving our rainbows to the foreigners, allowing foreigners to pluck the low hanging fruits that we grew by our sweat and tears. Did I get this part wrong, that LKY was telling the foreigners to go chase after the rainbow? Did LKY say take the rainbow and give it to foreigners?  I did not read it that way? Anyone thinks LKY is telling them to snatch the rainbow away from Singaporeans to give it to foreigners?

The other part is about not mortgaging the future of our children away. Has anyone done that, mortgaging the future of our children away? No, no one is silly enough to mortgage the future of our children away. But has anyone give Singapore away, to foreigners? How much of Singapore has been given away to foreigners? No, we are only sharing our Singapore and our wealth and assets with foreigners. No one is giving them away. Please take this, it is a Singapore passport to prosperity, to a share of Singapore. It is complimentary.

Did I read LKY rightly or wrongly, in mortgaging the future of our children away? Quoting LKY is very easy. Primary school children also can do that. But understanding him, his intent, and the meaning of his wise words are a totally different thing altogether. One thing that people should not do is to turn LKY on his head, destroy his legacy and abuse his wise quotes or misquoting him.

What have we done to his legacy and his wise quotes?

Bukit Batok – Straight fight?

Several opposition parties have made their stand clear in not contesting the Bukit Batok by election and in supporting  Chee Soon Juan in a straight fight with the PAP.  Would there be a straight fight after all? Would there be any clowns or rogues stepping forward lo force a 3 corner or 4 corner fight?

How many opposition parties have yet to make their stand on this? Why are they not making their stand yet? Still counting the odds and thinking that they stand a chance, or waiting for oders to split the votes? Common sense will tell everyone that Bukit Batok is a tough call even for the SDP. The PAP won more than 70% in the GE and to turn around 30% of the votes for one party is an uphill task. Would another party improve its chance and to win the by election for entering into the fray?

The chances for another opposition party to come in and win is as good as zero, may even lose their deposit. But that is not important, it tells a lot about the agenda of the party that die die wants to come in to spoil the votes for the SDP. It also upsets an unwritten agreement among the opposition camp, to respect the right of another opposition party to fight in their designated constituency and not to break faith, to close rank to support each other in the opposition camp.

Let’s wait for the revelation of the spoiler or what some said, ‘mole party’ to show themselves. In a critical situation, the hands may be forced to open cards and the mole to be sacrificed for the bigger good.

Would this come to passé?

Brussels attacks – Where are the Americans?

After stirring the hornet’s nest and set the hornets scattering all over Europe, the Americans quietly fled the scene. Not their business anymore. Who created ISIS, dunno. Why are the Arabs fleeing Syria and the Middle East?  Dunno. But Europe is now going to pay the price for this heinous crime against humanity. Europe will burn because of the crime of the Americans.

Not only Europe will have to bear the brunt of ISIS attack. Our ministers already gave the warnings, that it is a matter of when it will hit us. The threat from ISIS and suicide bombing is real and present. Stop wasting time and money dreaming of buying F35s. Use the money and resources wisely for this imminent threat to our lives and properties. I must emphasize on properties so that those people with a lot of properties will wake up, that if we are hit by ISIS, their property prices will collapse.

What happened in Brussels, in Paris, in Istanbul, were very expensive lessons for us to learn and to take steps to deal with them. Our intelligence sources, our monitoring and surveillance teams, our checkpoints, our researchers, our field soldiers, are they doing the right things, do we have enough of them, or are they stretched thin and become the weak links in the chain?

We are fortunate to be privy to the sequence of events happening in Brussels and other places. We may not be able to stop some of the attacks, but these live scenarios would be very useful to help us prepare for them, the command and control, the Home Teams, the SCDF, the soldiers, how many are needed, how to deploy them, I am very sure our experts would be working on them in great details and in earnest. How to react, who to react, what to react, and how to deploy the resources?

The ISIS threat is very real and requires all the resources available to deal with them.  The number of soft targets here is unimaginable. Would all the valuable resources deployed for less important duties or spurious activities be recalled and regrouped to deal with this immediate threat?  There is no privilege for politicking and shadow fighting with one’s own shadow instead of preparing for this very real threat?

When similar attacks like the ones in Brussels or other cities hit us, would we be ready to roll out the forces like clockwork precision, or would we be in the same situation like the Little India riot, not enough manpower, caught in traffic jams, running for cover instead of rushing to the scene to take control of the situation?

We have the advantages of hindsight from these incidents to prepare for such eventualities. Let’s not waste time and get to work immediately and take this threat very seriously. We need more manpower and resources to tackle this imminent threat.

Do not depend on the Americans. They are busy preparing another war zone for Asians in the Korean Peninsula and the South China Sea. And the Koreans are smart enough not to take the bait and go on to kill each other. Not sure about the silly Asean countries and their bravado in the South China Sea.