What is Shanmugam smoking?

This is the heading in the Today paper, ‘S’poreans must decide if they want President to have real power: Shanmugam’.  I can’t believe this coming from Shanmugam. When have the Singaporeans got any say in the President thing? It is all the govt saying and doing, and going to approve in Parliament. Where is the part that Singaporeans got the right to have a say in this saga?

If Shanmugam is serious in what he is saying, that Singaporeans must decide, then let’s have a referendum on this EP criteria and the drastic changes to have race as a criteria for the election of an EP and all sorts of ridiculous terms to bar the ordinary Singaporeans from the right to be the EP. The whole act is between the govt and 9 members in the Constitutional Commission and later between the PAP MPs voting for it with the WP MPs voting against it.

Where do the Singaporeans come in on this, and have a say? I quote a comment from a commentator in TRE about what some Singaporeans are thinking,

Sg patriot:
September 8, 2016 at 8:26 pm  (Quote)
I don’t even bother to read or hear anything about this EP nonsense.
Pinky has his secret agenda. Every damn law or proposal can be passed or rammed down our throats as Long as PAP and their sycophants are the main players.
Besides, no proposal or law is for the benefit of citizens but for themselves to entrench their power and remain in office indefinitely.

Does the above quote say it clearly what the Singaporeans are thinking and what part are they playing in this Presidency thing?

It seems that someone worked up in the morning and had a brain crash and decided that this is the best thing and should be done regardless of whether Singaporeans agree to it or not. It has nothing to do with what the Singaporeans want. If the Singaporeans have a say in this, do the necessary, call for a referendum for the Singaporeans to decide not because someone thinks it is right and he has to do it.

And the inclusion of race into the Constitution and all the high barriers, are they unconstitutional? Two top judges are in the Commission, and must have thought that these changes are constitutional? Are they? The Law Society and the legal fraternity are silent on this whole episode. Strange, didn't they the most learned men and women with respect to law and legality have any to say about this?

Cheng Bock qualifies

Of course this is just my view and does not matter. But I have my reasons for it and they are logical and took into account the new recommendations by the Constitution Commission.  And I swear I am not under the influence of drugs or smoking some grass to come out with such a conclusion. The two grounds that were quoted to disqualify Cheng Bock, to me, tak pakai, boh tiok.  Why?

From $100m to $500m change should not affect Cheng Bock’s qualification. He qualified the last time based on $100m and should qualify based on the current inflated value of $500m. The current value took into account inflation. So Cheng Bock’s $100m needs to be inflated as well. Just like someone living in a $1m bungalow 20 years ago, the bungalow is now $30m at today’s inflated price. The guy still lives in the same bungalow. His $1m bungalow is now $30m. Sama sama bungalow. You cannot say he is still worth only $1m. The same principle of inflation must apply both ways to be fair and logical. You can’t inflate only those you choose to inflate. You must be consistent or your arguments become like kangaroo talk.

The second point, 5 terms or 30 years would at first glance disqualify Cheng Bock. The question is when should this period start to count?

There are two phases to our Presidency. The first 4 presidents were under a system of appointment by the ruling party. Just because the ruling party did not want to appoint a Malay president cannot be the fault of the system. Any Malay candidate can be appointed by the ruling party to be the president under the old system. So this period cannot be counted under the new ruling as that system did not disadvantage a minority candidate. Want to blame, blame the ruling party for not appointing a Malay president. It was within their right and power to do so.

The counting for the said period of no minority president to give special rights to a minority candidate should start from the Elected President regime, ie from Ong Teng Cheong onwards. So, till now, only 4 terms have passed, and only 20 years have lapsed. There is no need to fill in a minority president yet. Tiok boh, logical or not?  No bluff one. If you still cannot grasp this simple and logical reason, then either you are a hopeless case or insincere or insane.

So there is no need even to consider which minority shall be first on the line as the commencement period starts from Ong Teng Cheong’s term, there was Nathan, 2 terms with both Teng Cheong and Tony Tan one term each. The next president could then either be a Malay or Others since both groups were missing if this continues for another 10 year or one more term.

See, my reasoning quite logical right? Under the new changes, Cheng Bock should still be eligible right? But no, because what I said tak pakai also.  There is a higher logic to apply to rule out Cheng Bok from the race. And the higher logic always win, always right, always rule. You interpret the law to your advantage, suka suka, to what you want the law to be. Are my spellings right or wrong?

Many Singaporeans would just read the main media, and if the main media says right they would simply agree, without bothering to engage the head above their neck to ask if they have been conned. Do not simply believe in the main media. They have their own agenda and want you to believe what they said. You must think for yourself and reason for yourself if you think you are a living thing. Don’t ever let other people think for you and tell you what is right or wrong, what is good or bad.

The World Via The UN Must Condemn Australia For Bullying and Stealing The Timor Sea From The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste

When Timor-Leste gained its independence from Indonesia on May 20th, 2002, the boundary of its Timor Sea which it shares with Australia had yet to be settled. The Australia-East Timor disputes over maritime boundaries in the Timor Sea have been simmering for a long time. Both Australia and East Timor brought the dispute before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague for arbitration However, Australia pre-empts the case of being decided by the court in favour of East Timor when its Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop and its Attorney General George Brandis jointly declared , " In line with our pre-existing legally binding treaties, ( with Indonesia and not recognized by Timor-Leste government ) Australia will not accept the jurisdiction to conduct hearings on maritime boundaries." This is tantamount to Australia not accepting the tribunal's award on the disputes

Australia in fraudulently referring to its pre-existing treaties with Indonesia as fait accompli does not hold water because they have never been recognized by the East Timorese government and people. However, an interim Timor Sea Arrangement was signed between Australia and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET ) in July, 2001. The Timor Sea Treaty between Australia and East Timor took effect in April, 2003, and both parties consensously agreed on the exploitation of resources and on January, 2006 , they signed the agreement on certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea in which both agreed to share the dispute for 50 years and make a 50-50 split on the profits in the disputed Greater Sunrise region.

However, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS ) most oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea fall within East Timor territory. Thus the East Timorese government attempts to settle border disputes with Australia via negotiations on law which was later turned down by Australia.

East Timor protested to to an Australian spying scandal in 2012 , when Australia on the pretext of giving aid to East Timor was able to steal vital information regarding the Timor Sea negotiations which put East Timor to great disadvantage and this intensified the maritime disputes.East Timor then demanded negotiations with Australia to settle the disputes via bilateral talks. Australia has yet to agree to bilateral talks and in the meantime it refused to accept the PCA arbitration case.

Australia was too quick to condemn China in the recent fake and bogus tribunal over the South China Sea issue and its Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull cynically claimed , " It is an important decision , it is one that has been made in accordance with international law and it should be respected by both parties, and indeed by all parties and claiments." It is a shame its Foreign Minister , Julie Bishop doesn't seem to agree when it is applied to Australia's cheating and stealing of East Timor's territorial seas and resources. Julie Bishop reiterated Australia's committment to exercising its rights to freedom of navigation ( referring to South China ) and in her own words to ignore the ruling  would be a serious international transgression " and that Australia would stand with the international community in calling for both sides to treat the arbitration (no doubt illegal and illicit ) as final and binding.

This has exposed the hypocrisy and double standard of Australia for that opinion might have been taken more seriously if Australia followed up on its hollow commendation for multilateralism and international law with adherence to those ideals itself in the context of its disputes with East Timor Republic. In the present case Australia is both bullying East Timor and stealing its territorial seas , thus depriving East Timor of its rightful sovereignty over the Timor Sea.

It must be remembered that for its own shameful and selfish ends , Australia is the only country in the world that endorsed the 1975-1999 Indonesia occupation of East Timor during which more than 180,000 East Timorese soldiers and citizens were killed. Australia was complicit in the atrocities and the only Western nation to recognize Indonesian annexation of Timor-Leste , a means to an end , ensuring the ratification of the 1989 Timor Gap Treaty, between Australia and Indonesia which favoured Australia.

Southernglory1
Thursday, 8th September,20

Elected Presidency – Cheng Bock in or out?

This must be the question in the minds of many after the recommendations by the Constitutional Commission were revealed. Nothing surprising and all the changes were more or less expected, like a child with all the right DNAs of the conceiving parents. So what is new?

Many are seeing the intended consequences of the Commission and the intended results based on a preconceived idea or agenda of what the Commission was all about from the very start of its existence. And they are not disappointed. Let me point out a few unintended consequences arising from the recommendations that would prove tricky and slimy in times to come.

The first point is the stringent criteria for an Elected President that, and I quote a comment by Chok Tong in the media, ‘We do not want to have a very high powered man who can be your President to be doing nothing for six years.’ This remark by Chok Tong was in response to a suggestion for a Vice President. But it is still very appropriate in the case of the EP whose 6 years would mainly be kissing children and waving at the crowds and shaking hands with the people visiting the Istana on public holidays.

The big question, why is there a need for such a high powered man with a string of stringent criteria? Is the job of the EP more important, more complicated and more demanding than that of the PM? Is the PM’s job so ‘senang’ that any Tom, Dick and Harry could take over without a single criteria on his suitability other than he is not insane? How many of you would agree that the PM’s job is definitely hundreds of times more difficult and complicated and demanding than the EP? It’s a no brainer really.

So, should not the criteria for the EP be made applicable to the PM, and more, make it even more stringent as the importance and complexity of the job demands a bigger superman. It is simply nonsensical for such an important job to be given to anyone without passing the same criteria as the cosy job of the EP. Tiok or boh tiok? If not, then the stringent criteria imposed on the Presidential candidate would become nonsensical as well.

The next unintended consequence of the recommendation is that all new citizens would be equally eligible to be the EP as long as they met the criteria, with no regards to their place of birth. They are eligible the moment they get their citizenship, fresh from the oven, as they said. Is this fair to the rest of the true blue citizens? Any new citizen from PRC or India or anywhere else would have the same right as a native citizen to be the EP.  This is as good as selling out the citizens’ rights to the Johnny come lately. Good, tiok, can, acceptable, never mind?

Another unthought of consequences, ok, I am being intellectually arrogant here to think that the wise men and woman did not think of it, is that Pinoys would stand a good chance to be a minority EP. The Indian Indian new citizens would fall under the Indian category so no sweat, they are eligible if no Indians are elected over 30 years, or an Others ie Europeans could enjoy the same privilege. They must thank God that they are classified as Others and automatically qualified as a minority.

What is this Pinoy thing that is so special? If I am not mistaken, the Pinoys are classified as Malays in their Identity Cards. So they could hitch a ride in the Malay category to be a minority EP when the time comes. Lucky buggers. The Malay pool of eligible candidates for minority EP is thus enlarged and there should be no fear of no qualified candidates. The Pinoys are qualified legally by this classification. OK, this anomaly or privilege for the Pinoys would not be applicable if I am mistaken and they are classified as Pinoys and not Malays. I stand corrected on this.

What other things to consider about the recommendations? Oh there is a point that needs further clarification on the 5 terms and 30 year absence of a minority President. I will touch on this in another post.

Did I miss out on more unintended consequences on the EP issue? Surely there must be plenty. Oh, did Cheng Bock qualify or kena booted out for good? I will address this in the next post together with the 5 terms/30 year criteria.

Elected President - Pandora box or a can of worms?

The minority President issue is now the top agenda of Hsien Loong. From what he said and the publicity given to the issue, the amount of effort and resources poured into this black hole, he is adamant to see it through and there is no stopping it, come what may…unless.

Raising this racial issue of protecting minority representation, and the likely outcome of race being enshrined in the Constitution, is a very dangerous precedent to set. All the works of LKY and the first generation of leaders to make this a multi racial society where everyone is equal regardless of race or religion would go kaput.  Race would become a national issue and be institutionalized and embedded in the Constitution that the pioneer leaders fear to tread and did all they could to keep it out of national politics.

Some may see this as the opening of the Pandora box. Some would see it as the opening of a can of worms.  The big question in everyone’s mind is why now when the PAP had all the time and opportunity to put in a Malay President in the last 50 years after Yusof Ishak? After Yusof Ishak there were Sheares, Nair, Wee, all appointed by the PAP and PAP could appoint any Malay leaders if it wanted to. It was so simple!

Then the next 3 elected presidents with Nathan taking two 6 year terms, why didn’t the PAP deem it fit all these years not to put up a Malay president candidate? Never think of it, it only happened yesterday and now they are thinking how important and urgent this is that it must be done today like a do or die matter?  Is it just an after thought or there is more to it than just a minority president, specifically a Malay president?

The biggest worm crawling out from the can is the argument and the call for a Malay PM.  This has never been talk about before. Why not a Malay PM? And the newspaper’s list of 6 Chinese candidates as the possible PM after Hsien Loong makes the story more uncomfortable and out of sync at this moment. Tokenism or seriousness to want the Malay to play a vital role in the country’s leadership? If the role of Malay is so important in political leadership, to be the EP, why not the premiership? There are voices asking for his PM seat now. More shit is being stirred up in the process. Here is a comment from TRE.

‘PM Lee has hinted that next Elected President will be a Malay.
So why don’t he insist that next Prime Minister be a Malay.
Possible candidates – Yacoub Ibrahim, Zulkifli Masagos, Halimah Yacoob.’ (Spelling error inherent in the quote)

This call for a Malay PM is becoming very uncomfortable and growing louder. This is something the PAP did not expect. It is only heard in the social media but not the main media. What is the excuse of not putting up a Malay PM or a minority PM?  Meritocracy?  Is meritocracy the issue or should race also be an issue? Would it not be better to have a Malay PM in charge to make it really representative?

The more this EP is being discussed and kicked around using race as the raison d’tre, more worms would start to crawl out from the can. And like the Pandora box, there is no way to close the box or seal the can again.  Heed the old wisdom, do not open the Pandora box, or the can of worms. The founding fathers with all their wisdom have worked diligently to seal the can of worms for good.  No race politics!

What is happening today would make them turn in their graves.

What would happen when it is the turn of a Malay President? Would he be rolled out as the best Malay candidate for the Presidency? Or would he be rolled out as the best Singaporean for the Presidency? Next, this is the best Malay President to represent all races? This is the most meritorious candidate, chosen and elected based on merit, or based on race? Meritocracy is not compromised?

What do you think?