Bukit Batok By Election – No miracle!

The miracle that the opposition camp was hoping for failed to appear. When the sample poll was announced around 9.30pm, Murali was leading by 61% to Chee’s 39%. Given the experience from the last GE, the sample count was as good as a done deal and the SDP was as good as lost. Chee would have to fight another day.

No by election effect,  no affair’s effect, no Chee effect, no Punggol East effect. There were so many factors that were favourable to Chee and the SDP. On record, PAP always lost their by elections. This by election had all the factors as the Punggol East by election. A marital affair of a popular MP and the people voted to show their displeasure. There were many other factors that gave the opposition a better chance in Bukit Batok. There was no LKY effect. Before David Ong, Ong Chit Chung’s winning votes were in the low 51% and 52% in two elections. And his opponents were not as strong as in Chee Soon Juan in this by election.

Heaven is still smiling at the PAP. PAP’s fortune is still now waning yet. The voters of Bukit Batok must be very happy with the PAP and it is looking like this is going to turn into a PAP stronghold.

The point that everyone will be asking, here there is an average minority candidate, not a ministerial caliber, facing one of the strongest candidates from the opposition camp, and won. So, does this disprove the rationale for GRCs, a rationale that Singaporeans are likely to vote on racial lines? Now this is proven to be untrue. Singaporeans, the majority ethnic Chinese, are not racists and would vote for a good candidate or even a mediocre minority candidate, and race is NOT a factor?

Would the GRC concept be disbanded? Will the ongoing inquiry by the Constitution Commision trying to safe guard the representation of minorities as Elected President by disbanded as this by election has proven that it is a NON issue?

Let’s hear the wise explanations from the govt that this by election does not prove anything and GRC must stay and changes must be made to give the minorities a better chance to be Elected President. Would it be another argument along the line that head I win, tail you lose?

This by election really pours a lot of cold water on the opposition camp. Even if there are more by elections, they would not win. The PAP has the secret formula to win elections, general elections and by elections. This will send shivers down the spine of the opposition candidates and supporters. I am not trying to create fear or cause alarm. I am just making an honest comment here.

PAP will be the ruling party till SG100 and forever. This is Singapore’s version of Exceptionalism. We are witnessing a new history in the making where a political party cannot lose power and will rule forever and ever and they lived happily thereafter, like in the fairy tales.

What is the secret formula? Let me guess, do the right things, even if unpopular, like increasing the population, bringing in more foreigners, give billions of dollars of scholarship to foreigners instead of to the citizens’ children, locking up the people’s CPF savings, high cost of living etc etc, all good policies though unpopular. But the people understood. The people are not daft, they knew they have a very good and honest govt working their guts out for them and the tough policies are good policies. The people may kpkb, unhappy, but when come to voting, they will vote for the PAP.  There is so much trust and faith in the PAP.

Even part time MPs are ok as long as they are PAP MPs. They are exceptional talents and would do a better job than full time opposition MPs, especially in running the very difficult and complex town councils that needs exceptional talents to do it. They deserve every dollar they are paid in their million dollar salary, the highest in the whole wide world.

Singaporeans are so blessed to have the PAP to rule over them.

PS: I received this sms from deep low a few days ago. It said PAP would win 60:40. I knew he knew and what he said was likely to be. But he did not know I knew he knew. He was trying to tell me something. He had to tell me that to prove a point. Of course I knew that was the likely result. I know where it was coming from.

Climate change – Screw the economists

Watched a programme for a couple of minutes on Channel News Asia hosted by Nabili Teymore on climate change and the bugging problem of a 2-3 degree rise in world temperature and how many parts of the island or the world would be under water. The main concern was fossil fuel consumption. How to control and cut down on the use of this disappearing natural resource that was built up over millennia so that we can use it so conveniently? Not only that this taken for granted and wastefully consumed, so were other natural resources like raw materials. And all for the sake of economic growth. And in order for economic growth, you need population growth in order to create demand to consume them, even if unnecessary or wastefully.  Is this a good thing?

The big question, what for? The world’s population today is about 6-7b. For more economic growth, it could grow to 8b, 10b or 20b to consume more material, food and resources, to deplete whatever nature has bestowed to humankind, all because some silly economic formula said economic growth is good, no growth is bad, and recession is worse.

When the mythical Adam and Eve inherited mother earth, there were two of them and they had the whole world to themselves. There was not a single concern about not enough of anything other than human beans. The animals too had space of their own. Humankind unconsciously or by designed, populated this earth and grow and grow to what it is today, and still growing. And we are bungling about the fear that we don’t have enough resources to keep us growing, and climate change.

And we have morons wanting to grow the population in this island from 5m to 10m and some even want to grow it to 20m as if this is a good thing, this is the way to a better life and economic growth. And the morons jolly well know that we have limited space, limited water supply, no energy resources, and they don’t care. They are cracking their moronic heads on how to bring in more millions of people, for economic growth. To create a more vibrant society that never sleeps.  Want to consume Tongkat Ali whole day?

Imagine a different scenario, when the world’s population is down by half, to 3b, or this island’s population is down to 2.5m, there would be lesser consumption of the natural resources and abundance of food, space and all the buildings that have been built. There will be no need to build more towers of Babel.

The value of money will be increased instead of decreasing, there will be more space and food for everyone at lower cost. Why not? Why keep on growing population to please the economists for growth numbers? With today’s productivity, use of highly efficient machinery, robotics, computerization, farming and food production methods, we do not need so many people to produce what is needed.

What is the purpose of living and life, what is the purpose of economic growth? To consume to the point of self destruction by having more and more people? You don’t want growth, don’t want to increase your pay? What for when eaten up by inflation and the value of money shrunk and the earth faces a depletion of its valuable but limited resources? When productivity is high, when there are lesser people, the value of money will be high, the quality of life will be better. Do not need to be stuffed like sardines everywhere.

The natural law and cycle of nature is growth, decay and destruction and renewal. The madness in unrestrained growth for the sole purpose of growth would lead to decay and dsstruction for sure. In the name of growth, human beans are consuming and destroying mother earth at a faster rate than before. In a way, human beans are consuming itself to death.

Post by Anon ++ - Singapore going where?

Sinkieland has been going the road path in some of its economic policies.

For a cuntry without abundance of resources such as land, labour and even air space etc ....... , playing the numbers game where it does not have any comparative advantage at all is going to "capsize" it eventually when "critical" areas hit the upper limits as well as diminishing returns to scale sets in.

Tourism and air travel as a hub would hit an upper limit in air space beyond certain level and where to import the additional AIR SPACE or land to build another airport?

It is MORONIC to build, say, 10 airport terminals and "CON" the kongcum that such would increase the economy's capacities because the bottlenecks in other areas MEANS even if there is additional ( air travel ) demand, and that is a BIG IF, the air space CANNOT COPE beyond a certain limit?

 

The "BUZZ" created in more and more areas "DEGENERATE" in quality and it can "FOOL" some kongcum and many third world "arrivals" and "new instant trees" but NOT those who might ( ULTIMATELY ) influence the ( pivotal ) outcome of the fate of a small "SAMPAN" packed ( more and more ) like a typical AhNehLand or Matland transportation transit interchange?

To cause more and more parts of the ( limited space ) city state to "degrade" to a "busy" place filled with "super low quality" 3rd world crowd would eventually "lead to its CAVING in"?

Instead of attracting talents to congregate in the city state in typical agglomeration phenomenon, the OPPOSITE would likely take place where like a puddles of "KHAW DUNG" in the open space, it attracts the "UNWANTED" such as "FLIES, KHAW DUNG beetles" etc .....

 

Nobody or economy can escape the "GRAVITATIONAL LAW" eventually? In human and economic history, the adjustment process never fail to be "PAINFUL" when ( eventually ) "RESOURCES DISASTERS" or any other struck?

To draw an analogy between a cuntry and a family, how can a family staying in a limited house keep expanding until the sleeping space occupies every feet of the floor with overcrowding?  Under such conditions, what kind of quality can emerge? Without exaggeration, every resource would be stretched to (BEYOND ) breaking point?

Some MORONS running the economy must have NEVER heard of "DISECONOMIES OF SCALE" and what the shape of the LRAC ( LONG RUN AVERAGE COST CURVE ) of businesses in a small cuntry with limited resources LOOK LIKE?

 

The social problems of the subjects of other cuntries BELONG to the motherland that they were born .....?  When there are more and more cases of foreigners in sinkieland having difficulty in $$$ to pay for their meals, policies makers MUST think whether this is the way they want to go?

The implications underneath are multi-fold but foremost, in some ways it could mean "importing social problems" beyond what the economy and society can cope with at some point in time? Why is such "crowd" ( who are finding difficulty even eating in foodcourt ) increasingly coming in at "such massive scale"? What "DISTORTION" would it create in the domestic labour market? Does it also imply sinkieland have become "TOO COSTLY"?

 

It is only right that a society take care ( to a certain extent ) of its own subjects ( first and foremost ) as it is built in that way in the existence of the nation state system? Does it NOT go without any saying?

Who would the state call upon to defend the cuntry in times of need? It is rightful for a system to build in mechanism to care for those who are down ( in one way or another ) from time to time.

But the responsibility to do so for other cuntries subjects cannot be that of a tiny CITY STATE as well? No? By importing the "social problems" of other countries into sinkieland in an increasing ( and even massive ) scale, in no time "degradation and degeneration" likely set in .....?

Eventually, it would not be surprising for the sampan to "sink" back to the level of the early 20th century?  A city port that when the late Deng Xiao Ping transited enroute to Paris in 1921, he "GOT NOTHING GOOD TO SAY ABOUT IT"?

Who is spreading fear and alarm?

I thought today is a cooling day for the by election. This morning when I read the papers I was filled with fear and alarm. I was trembling when I saw the headline, ‘SDP spreading fear, alarm with populist politics, says Tharman’. And there were so many pages of fear and alarm in the media. I wonder how to cool down when the papers were red hot.

I quickly went through the reports to see what were so frightening. Populist policies are frightening, alarming? Proposing an unemployment insurance policy is alarming and raising fear? Why didn’t I feel any fear after reading these? When someone said things about fear and alarm, I am supposed to be shivering, my face is supposed to turn white.  No a nice colour.  But no. And not a single people who attended the rally at Bukit Batok last night, probably 20,000 or more, were frightened or alarmed but having a refreshing time listening to the messages of hope and a better alternative future. There were many families with children and all were in very exciting mood. Fear was not there. Someone said before, fear is dead. The politics of fear is dead.

Come on, don’t bluff the people. There was no fear at all. I can vouch for that. I saw people stuffing $50 notes into the donation boxes and picking up books and queuing up for Chee Soon Juan to sign.  No one was scurrying for cover, to go home and hide under the bed. Fear? Where is fear? Really crazy! Have a sense of reality man!

Tharman was talking about politics of division versus consensus. Who is responsible for the politics of division? Don’t ask me.  Who is bluffing and not telling people the truth? Why are employment statistics always talking about locals and not about Singapore citizens? We are not interested about locals that include PRs. PRs are not citizens, damn it. How many times must this be said before it gets through the thick head? Tell the truth, the real statistics about employment and unemployment of citizens, the Singaporeans that the govt is supposed to look after, the citizens that voted the govt to power, not about locals or PRs. Can we have the truth? WDA matched 17,000 jobs, EDB generated 20,000 jobs. How many went to Singaporeans, how many to PRs and how many to foreigners? Cannot tell meh? What is the truth?

Vote for Murali, he can be trusted, he dares, he will serve the people, he has a desire to serve, part time only. I rather vote for someone like Chee Soon Juan who has promised to serve the people full time. Full time man, not I want to serve you, but part time only. I have more important things to do during the day.

I trust someone like Dr Chee who said he wants to serve you and this means serving you full time. What would you make out of someone who said you are my top priority, I want to serve you, but I can only serve you part time?

Crazy? Have a sense of reality man. And at this moment I am not feeling any fear or alarm after reading the papers. How come? Where is fear? Stop stroking fear. It would not stand up.

Bukit Batok By election – Just one reason

There is really just one reason for the Bukit Batok voters to think about. Do they believe that it is a good thing for too much political power to reside in one political party or one person?


Think about it, too much power in one person or one party will lead to abuses of power and corruption of power. The PAP already has absolute power in Parliament with 81 out of 89 seats. This is overwhelmingly more than the two third majority needed to do anything it wants, including changing constitution and writing new laws. Is this too much power given to a political party to wield freely with no means of controlling or moderating the party should it decide to implement policies that are unpopular or not what the people want? We have seen many policies that are detrimental to the country and people. To the PAP they are good policies but to the people they are bad but the people could not do anything about them as absolute power is in the hands of the PAP.


Do the people of Bukit Batok want to give more power to the PAP by voting in another PAP MP? Is this a wise and sensible thing to do?  Voting in another opposition MP can only do good and no harm to the country and people. There will be another alternative voice for the people in Parliament, to speak for the people, not to speak against the people, not to ignore the people and the concerns of the people.


For this reason alone, to dilute the absolute power of the ruling party, the people of Bukit Batok must vote for Chee Soon Juan, vote for the SDP, for the good of country and people.  It is absolutely silly and stupid to put all the power in one party and in one person. Anyone telling you this is good is insulting your intelligence, taking you as a fool. In a democracy, political power of the people must be balanced to offer checks and balance. Too much power in one political party, even in a democracy, is not much different from a dictatorship.


Vote wisely, vote for your interests, for your own good. Protect yourself and your children with more opposition representative in Parliament. 82 MPs of one party in a Parliament of 89 is simply too much and too dangerous for the good of the people and country. Voting for more opposition representation is voting for an insurance policy, to protect the people’s interest.


Put aside all the arguments, about personalities, about what they can or cannot do for you. Put aside all the upgrading, all the facilities. It is not about Chee or Murali.  It is not about the PAP or SDP. It is about interest and well being of the people. There is a bigger and more important issue, a more balanced Parliament with more representatives from the opposition camp to check on an over represented ruling party.