Elected President – A can of worms

The Constitutional Commission of wise men and a woman has opened its door for business and several wise men and wise women were invited to share their views on the task set for the Commission. What the Commission is not set up to do is to examine the primary basis for the need of an Elected President, the first assumption. In political science, the first thing we were taught to do was to examine the assumptions of a political theory. Without doing so we could be sent on a wild goose chase and feeling very happy about it, that everything is sound and right. 

It is like someone claiming that sugar is the cause of diabetes and everyone would be shouting, ‘hang the sugar’!  Get rid of sugar, ban sugar, increase sugar tax, fine people consuming too much sugar!  In politics, it could be like someone propounding the theory that dictatorship or one party is best and everyone will be going about praising dictatorship or one party and trying to make a dictatorship/one party better and betterer.

Well, since no want is going to talk about the first principle, about the first assumption, it is pointless to ask such a question. Everyone is taking for granted that the Elected President is the best thing to happen to our political system, or a motherhood that we have to live with, just like a rogue govt or a rogue president waiting to happen, hiding behind the bend.

Since this is the case, let me join the circus, oops, I mean the circle of wise men and women, to make the best of the Elected President thing. This I must again confess, I don’t think is a good idea or necessary, but a waste of public money and resources that can be put to better use. Oh, and before I go and make myself silly,… among the wise men and women that have spoken, the wisest of the wise is, I must say, the legal intern called Brian Chang. This is what he said in a simple sentence that said so much. ‘ I think we need to (be) very careful with whether we want to introduce race based criteria which do not exist at the moment into any of our political offices and if we want to take the first step down the (slippery) slope.’

This sentence alone already shows the kind of complex and multitudes of problems that will come along when ethnicity or race is embedded into our political system, in the Elected Presidency. No need to elaborate further. No one is more blind that those with eyes but could not see. It is an enormous can of worms that would start to wriggle out once it is opened. Do we want to ask for something that we cannot cope with that we don’t have to in the first place?

Ok, now that I have vented, let me get to the great silly ideas that I have been playing with, the minorities in our Elected Presidency concept. What is the meaning of minority? The original CMIO or more? How much more would we want to classify an ethnic group as a minority and eligible to have a right to be the Elected President by default, provided and protected by the Constitution? Would we be welcoming the Pinoys, the Myanmese, the Banglas, the high caste Indians, the Vietnamese, the Thais, the Indonesians and what not as our new minorities and enjoying equal rights as the MIOs, to have a right to be an Elected President?

And why stop at ethnicity, what about women as a minority, (AWARE has spoken), what about age, religion, the non meat eaters, there are many kinds of minorities in our little piece of rock.  Oooh, I forgot about the beautiful pink people. They are minorities too.

Ok, ok, this is pushing the limit too far. Let’s get back to the ethnic minorities. What is the best formula to work with? Now it is 75:15:8:2, or there about.  Can this be crafted into a scientific formula of relative representation? Or should it be a simple rule of thumb, 3C:1.5M: 1I: 0.5O?  To make this formula workable, multiply by 2 and we will get 6C:3M:2I:1O. Just ignore the new minorities until they start to protest violently.  The formula will mean over 12 terms of EP, 6 terms will go to a Chinese, 3 terms to a Malay, 2 terms to an Indian and 1 term to an Others. My apologies to call you Others, not my choice of words.  How to count if one minority president sits in the Istana for more than one term?

What about the new Others that should be added in? Should the new formula be CMIOPIMVBT? It would be quite a ‘chap cheng’ formula and quite perplexing. It may be better to reengineer the population to a point where each ethnic group is 10% and every tribe will have one term of Elected President each, very fair and very easy to manage. Next time got 20 tribes, can change formula again.

I won’t want to go further than this. It is already complicated enough. What do you think? A race embedded formula for the Elected Presidency to make sure every minority group is treated equally and fairly. Can it ever be fair? Never mind, the silly majority here is very generous and will go along with anything, with any formula, even reducing its majority status. They believe in meritocracy and excellence regardless of nationalities. You can sell them to be prostitutes and they would not mind.

Enshrining racial differences into our political holy grail? Anyone think this is a good idea?

Does anyone remember what is this?

‘We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity
and progress for our nation’.

Please respect this national pledge. Sorry Raja, need to remind the daft and dumb about what you said, even if it is an aspiration.

Entrepreneurship is not just for the young

Jonathan Chee wrote an article published in the Today Online calling on the govt to think of giving the seniors a helping hand as well in funding for entrepreneurship. The govt’s  scheme is mainly targeted at the younger set for good reasons. The young have so many more years to go, why help the ‘ah pehs’ and the ‘ah mahs’ who should be looking after their grandchildren or sailing into the sunset in their golden years, or pushing carts for exercise?

Here is a bit of Johnathan’s article published on 14 Apr.

‘Entrepreneurship is for all, regardless of age (“S’pore to create space for ‘winners’ to emerge: Heng Swee Keat”; April 8, online).

“Colonel” Sanders founded Kentucky Fried Chicken in his 60s, and Mr Ray Kroc established McDonald’s when he was 52. If Singapore focuses only on the youth, then we would lose the opportunity to have senior entrepreneurs like them….

The Government can give a hand to these experienced Singaporeans by allowing them to borrow from their CPF for their ventures, or lend them working capital based on their CPF balance….’

Though Jonathan’s call is valid as many oldies would like a chance to have another go at the challenge of going into a project or venture of their own, be their own boss for once, not the driving taxi type of boss, there is a catch. Once the CPF is mentioned…this is a very sensitive subject. Don’t ever dream of touching it. There is nothing much left after Medishield Life and Medisave Life and the Minimum Sums.

If the seniors were to allow to use their CPF savings and failed again, there is no turning back.  But another point, where got money left with everything locked up, all top priority items, spent already or designated and set aside, cannot touch. The CPF owners like Jonathan will have the last right to decide what they can do with their savings. The govt has the first right to decide what they want to do with the people’s CPF life savings and how much it wants to ‘tangkap’ for the good of the people.

Like they said, Jonathan would have to ‘tan ku ku’, if he knows what the govt’s plan on his CPF. That is real entrepreneurship. Making millions pay for something with no right to say no and no effort, no special skills or technology, no rent to pay.  And don’t ever think of touching the CPF minimum sum. Not your money anymore.

News coverage on Bukit Batok by election

So far, the coverage for both Chee Soon Juan and Murali has been quite balance. If one wants to nitpick, then one may complain that the photos of Murali are usually a bit bigger or Murali would be placed on top or in a more strategic position in the paper. Other than such fine details, this is the best that can be in terms of news coverage to date.

In the Today paper on 18 Apr, let me make a couple of observations. Chee Soon Juan is likely to lose out on the goodies that he could offer. All Chee could do was to promise that he would do this or that. Murali just rolled out the goodies cart packed with groceries for the people. This time he is even more innovative by giving equivalents of vouchers for the residents to choose what they want. This guy is so rich and generous. Chee cannot compete on this for sure.  Wait for Murali to push out his abalone porridge or XO roti prata cart and Chee would be left standing, high and dry.

Chee Soon Juan has an edge in having his wife accompanying him in every walkabout. He must have sensed that the people in Bukit Batok would want some kind of assurance that he is a happily married man and his wife is always around him to make sure all is fine. Under the present circumstances, this must be an advantage Chee is using to put the Bukit Batok voters at ease.

It would be nice if Chee could even the odds, find the money to throw some goodies, more groceries to the people. Where to find the money? So the richer man will still have an advantage in this, to show he cares, We Care, by giving. Chee must have a good chat with Murali to get some tips on where to find the money to give to the needy residents and say We Care also.

Sugar Tax – More happy solutions to Singapore’s problem

MP Chia Shi Lu is asking the govt to consider imposing sugar tax on food with high sugar content to fight against diabetes, heart disease, stroke and certain type of cancers. Sugar is a main cause to the rise in obesity. Imposed a sugar tax is a very good solution. All food and beverage with a sugar content shall be subject to a sugar tax to cut down on sugar consumption.

And do not stop at just sugar, fat is also dangerous. A fat tax should also be considered. But Chia Shi Lu also expresses concern that ‘such taxes may raise prices and disproportionately affect lower income Singaporeans who spend more on cheaper processed foods.  See, poor people cannot afford organic food or better quality food that are low on sugar, fat and low cholesterol and whatever to be healthy food. So how? Can give them more subsidies or not?

Some say eat rice also can get cancer because all those cancer patients also eat rice. So can consider a rice tax as well? And this is a timely reason to raise more taxes on wine and alcohol, all got sugar content, ice cream, cakes, sweets etc etc.

To protect the health of the people, more taxes must be imposed to reduce their intake of food.

Rogue President and freak election

We had a freak election in 2015. Yes , it was a freak election. Of course what is a freak election is a matter of opinion. Today some people are very busy worrying about this thing called rogue president. Again, what is a rogue president is also a matter of opinion. Why waste so much expensive manpower, time and resources on a peeved thing called a ‘rogue’ president? The Workers Party rightly refused to participate in this farce. Yes, to me it is a farce. Some may disagree and think or regard it as a very serious affair, a life and death thing involving an island state called Singapore. When one sees a bull, it is a bull.

Let’s get back to the first principle, what is this farce all about? It all started because someone said in case there is a freak election, in case the people voted in a new govt and the new govt is made up of crooks whose only interest is to run down the country and spend all the money in the reserves, and run the country to the ground. Are these valid and real reasons? Reasonable, sensible?

When these fears were first mooted, no one raise the any question. Or no one dared to raise any question. Fear was omnipresence then. Now that fear is dead, shall the people take some time to question what all these fears were about?

In the first place, what is a freak election, according to who is an election a freak election? Oh, is it because the people voted a new group of people, a new party to form the govt. Is that freakish? Or is that just a normal process of a democracy when the people so decided to choose another party to form the govt because they have given up hope on the incumbent govt as has been?

There are 2 million people out there, all very well educated. Are the voters stupid, mad or being drugged, or being bribed and so foolish to vote in unison, a new party to form the govt made up of rogues and cheats? And why should the political leaders in the newly elected govt be rogues, thugs, robbers, cheats, out to destroy the country and rob its reserves? Is this a reasonable assumption or a foolish assumption?

Is it right to say that only good, honest, clever and responsible politicians are found in the ruling party and the rest are all bad people? Children, I am speaking to you. Do you understand what I am saying? Have you grown up and know what is right and wrong, what is good for you and what is bad for you, what is reasonable and what is freakish?

Are these assumptions sound and real? Or are they just wild imaginations to frighten the voters, to create irrational fear? All democratic countries went through the electoral processes to elect new govts. This is what a democratic process is all about, a change of govt is the norm.

Is there a need for an Elected President to check on a popularly elected govt? How effective is such an Elected President to check on a ‘rogue’ govt? A one man machine against a parliament of political leaders?

And after creating an Elected President to check on a ‘rogue’ elected govt, now another new fear is raised. What happened if the Elected President to check on a ‘rogue’ govt becomes a ‘rogue’ President? So now we need to devise another funny scheme to double check to make sure the Elected President will not become a ‘rogue’ president?

Do we then need to triple check on whatever rules and regulations and criteria so that these would not become ‘rogue’ system of checks and checks?

What the fish? What is going on? A popularly elected govt to be checked by a single man called Elected President, and now to check on this Elected President that is supposed to check on the elected govt?

Does it make sense? Does it make any sense at all? So far, the only thing that makes sense is what the WP has suggested, there is no need for this Elected President. No need to waste public money and resources, in the hundreds of millions for something that needs to be checked and checked and checked.

What do you think?

The moral of the story…. I need a safe. But the safe is not safe enough. So I buy a bigger safe to put the safe inside. But I don’t trust the bigger safe. So I buy a biggerer safe to put the bigger safe with the smaller safe inside into this biggerer safe. If I don’t feel good about this biggerer safe, I may want to build a fortress around it.  And so the story goes.