When this lady was here, she called on her fellow citizens to return
home to build their beloved country. She also needs their support to
vote her party to power to make the changes that are good for Myanmar.
I also have the same idea, calling all overseas Sinkies to return home
to rebuild this country. The country needs them. So many have left while
those who want change are becoming a minority here and would soon be
integrated by the new citizens and become a new creature. How many
Sinkies are out there all over the world, left because they did not like
what they saw happening here. If only they were back, the numbers
wanting change would easily tip the balance. There seems to be a quiet
process to induce those not happy here to move out to weaken the
resistance.
This call for Sinkies to return is a call in vain. How many could afford
to return only to downgrade their lifestyles? No more big landed
properties with swimming pools and two car porches. No more two big
continental cars. Even after they disposed off their landed properties
and cars to return, all they can hope for or afford would be a HDB flat
and no cars. Worth it, better quality lifestyle?
Who would want to return? Who can afford to return? Oh, the govt is also
calling for the young scientists and highly qualified young Sinkies to
return home. Can they afford it? Or would they want to come home to a
life in a HDB flat and without cars even if the govt promises them the
best public transport in the whole world?
Sinkies out there, is it worth to return home, to this first class and
first world city? The country needs you, the daft Sinkies need you. We
have lost so many of you to make a difference here.
11/12/2013
Freedom of choice versus rights of choice
The hijab issue is still hot and will not rest for a long time to come.
Our constitution has guaranteed everyone, including those other than the
four recognized racial groups, the freedom to practice their religion
and culture and way of life. I can’t call them the four major racial
groups anymore as there are new groupings that are much larger than some
of the four recognized groups.
Everyone is free to choose his way of life. Then why should the hijab becomes an issue and the Malays feel oppressed, that their rights to freedom to wear the hijab violated? The anger is real, justified or unjustified is a very subjective thing depending on the basis of one’s interpretation. No one or organization is allowed to ban the wearing of hijab or any other religious ornaments on religious or racial ground. Is this simple enough to understand?
Maybe I will use the example of communal living to explain this situation. In any block of flats or condominium, there are various races living there, including foreigners. Everyone is free to practice his religion and way of life, wear whatever he fancies as long as it is not vulgar and offensive. No problem right? Anyone feeling oppressed that he cannot practice his religion or way of life? Anyone objecting to the wearing of the hijab? The answer is simply a big NO.
Problem may arise within the four walls of a family unit. What a family practices and does may not be agreeable or acceptable to other families. Keeping of animals, eating of meat and even dressing can be an issue. But as long as they keep it within their four walls, everything is fine. Everyone has the freedom to choose to enter the home of another family or avoid doing so. There is freedom of choice. If I don’t accept or agree to what another family is doing, I can stay away. I can even avoid communicating or be friendly with the family. It is my freedom of choice as long as I do not provoke and find faults with them or intrude into their lives. You live your life I live mine. At this point, still peace under the sky.
No one can impose his lifestyle or religion onto their neighbours. No one can tell the neighbour what not to do or not to eat or how to dress. No one can enter the homes of the neighbours without his permission. If one chooses to enter the neighbour’s home, one has to accept whatever he is or there is. You cannot enter your neighbour’s home and tell him not to do this or that or dress whatever you like. This is basic etiquette and good manners. It is your choice. You are the intruder into his private space.
The other way round, if a family wants to invite another family into his homes and knowing the taboos of that family, it is not only proper but also polite and good upbringing to make sure that the invited family is comfortable without having anything offensive to them in their presence. It will be very rude and distasteful to invite someone who does not eat meat into your home and offer him meat and nothing else. The family that invites has a duty and responsibility to make sure his guests are comfortable. If he cannot meet that requirement, he should not invite the guest. Fair enough?
Such simple ground rules can make communal living among different races and religions peaceful, not necessary harmonious, but acceptable. The problem comes when an uninvited guest insists to enter another home and insists that the owner provides all the things that the uninvited guest feels comfortable. As an example, the uninvited guest may be a vegan and insists that the host must serve only vegetables. Is this fair? In the first place the vegan is not an invited guest. He has no reason to be there. Even if the vegan finds that home more comfortable and wanted to be there, he is not invited and cannot be there. If the host is willing to welcome him, it must be under the terms of the host.
Who is being rude and imposing? Who’s right is being violated? Who should feel oppressed? Who should be complaining?
Though the constitution provides everyone the right and freedom to religion and way of life, it does not allow anyone to impose his religion and way of life on others. In the same way, no organization is allowed to set rules and regulations on religious grounds, especially govt institutions, except religious organizations that are strictly for their own followers. As a secular state, all institutions have the right to set their own rules and regulations even on proper dressing and uniforms. Just because the uniform is not agreeable to anyone does not give the person the right to demand a change to accommodate the person on religious and cultural grounds. No racial or religious group has the right to demand that a secular organization must accept their religious norms and practices.
The uniforms of uniformed organizations are designed without any intent to violate any religion or race. They are neutral in that sense. And the uniforms are necessary for a simple reason, uniformity. A uniformed organizations demands uniformity, conformity and discipline. No exceptions unless it violates safety and a threat to life.
To demand an organization to change to suit an individual, race or religion is a violation of the freedom and rights of the organization. The organization is also protected under the constitution to have freedom of choice as an individual. The uniformed organization is not violating anyone’s right to his freedom of choice and religion by insisting that its members should wear uniform.
Just a distraction, the cross hovering on top of a hospital has a religious origin. Can any religious group feel offended and want it to be removed? Technically everyone in the hospital is working under the cross. Everyone should remember that you are free to exercise your rights to practice your religion and way of life as long as you do not impose on other people’s rights to their way of life and not on a secular organisation’s right and freedom of choice.
Who is reasonable and who is being unreasonable? I am very reasonable. I am a vegetarian and anyone inviting me to his party must make sure that no meat is around or is being served. It is offensive to my sight and emotion. I am a non smoker and when I am invited, I do not want anyone around me to smoke, not even in the same room. I am very reasonable. Do you feel oppressed by me?
Everyone is free to choose his way of life. Then why should the hijab becomes an issue and the Malays feel oppressed, that their rights to freedom to wear the hijab violated? The anger is real, justified or unjustified is a very subjective thing depending on the basis of one’s interpretation. No one or organization is allowed to ban the wearing of hijab or any other religious ornaments on religious or racial ground. Is this simple enough to understand?
Maybe I will use the example of communal living to explain this situation. In any block of flats or condominium, there are various races living there, including foreigners. Everyone is free to practice his religion and way of life, wear whatever he fancies as long as it is not vulgar and offensive. No problem right? Anyone feeling oppressed that he cannot practice his religion or way of life? Anyone objecting to the wearing of the hijab? The answer is simply a big NO.
Problem may arise within the four walls of a family unit. What a family practices and does may not be agreeable or acceptable to other families. Keeping of animals, eating of meat and even dressing can be an issue. But as long as they keep it within their four walls, everything is fine. Everyone has the freedom to choose to enter the home of another family or avoid doing so. There is freedom of choice. If I don’t accept or agree to what another family is doing, I can stay away. I can even avoid communicating or be friendly with the family. It is my freedom of choice as long as I do not provoke and find faults with them or intrude into their lives. You live your life I live mine. At this point, still peace under the sky.
No one can impose his lifestyle or religion onto their neighbours. No one can tell the neighbour what not to do or not to eat or how to dress. No one can enter the homes of the neighbours without his permission. If one chooses to enter the neighbour’s home, one has to accept whatever he is or there is. You cannot enter your neighbour’s home and tell him not to do this or that or dress whatever you like. This is basic etiquette and good manners. It is your choice. You are the intruder into his private space.
The other way round, if a family wants to invite another family into his homes and knowing the taboos of that family, it is not only proper but also polite and good upbringing to make sure that the invited family is comfortable without having anything offensive to them in their presence. It will be very rude and distasteful to invite someone who does not eat meat into your home and offer him meat and nothing else. The family that invites has a duty and responsibility to make sure his guests are comfortable. If he cannot meet that requirement, he should not invite the guest. Fair enough?
Such simple ground rules can make communal living among different races and religions peaceful, not necessary harmonious, but acceptable. The problem comes when an uninvited guest insists to enter another home and insists that the owner provides all the things that the uninvited guest feels comfortable. As an example, the uninvited guest may be a vegan and insists that the host must serve only vegetables. Is this fair? In the first place the vegan is not an invited guest. He has no reason to be there. Even if the vegan finds that home more comfortable and wanted to be there, he is not invited and cannot be there. If the host is willing to welcome him, it must be under the terms of the host.
Who is being rude and imposing? Who’s right is being violated? Who should feel oppressed? Who should be complaining?
Though the constitution provides everyone the right and freedom to religion and way of life, it does not allow anyone to impose his religion and way of life on others. In the same way, no organization is allowed to set rules and regulations on religious grounds, especially govt institutions, except religious organizations that are strictly for their own followers. As a secular state, all institutions have the right to set their own rules and regulations even on proper dressing and uniforms. Just because the uniform is not agreeable to anyone does not give the person the right to demand a change to accommodate the person on religious and cultural grounds. No racial or religious group has the right to demand that a secular organization must accept their religious norms and practices.
The uniforms of uniformed organizations are designed without any intent to violate any religion or race. They are neutral in that sense. And the uniforms are necessary for a simple reason, uniformity. A uniformed organizations demands uniformity, conformity and discipline. No exceptions unless it violates safety and a threat to life.
To demand an organization to change to suit an individual, race or religion is a violation of the freedom and rights of the organization. The organization is also protected under the constitution to have freedom of choice as an individual. The uniformed organization is not violating anyone’s right to his freedom of choice and religion by insisting that its members should wear uniform.
Just a distraction, the cross hovering on top of a hospital has a religious origin. Can any religious group feel offended and want it to be removed? Technically everyone in the hospital is working under the cross. Everyone should remember that you are free to exercise your rights to practice your religion and way of life as long as you do not impose on other people’s rights to their way of life and not on a secular organisation’s right and freedom of choice.
Who is reasonable and who is being unreasonable? I am very reasonable. I am a vegetarian and anyone inviting me to his party must make sure that no meat is around or is being served. It is offensive to my sight and emotion. I am a non smoker and when I am invited, I do not want anyone around me to smoke, not even in the same room. I am very reasonable. Do you feel oppressed by me?
11/11/2013
2 persons connected with the recent hacking arrested
It is reported in TRE that two persons have been arrested in connection with the hacking by The Messiah. A James Raj and a Faizal Mohd are now in police custody and both are seeking M Ravi, the famous human rights lawyer to represent them.
James Raj was found to have in his possession devices used for hacking and will be charged under the Computer Misuse Act. Faizal Mohd was arrested for spray painting the word Anonymous in a school. The latter is less likely to be linked to the Messiah given the nature of his act. And it is unsure how is James Raj related to The Messiah or connected at all.
If James Raj is The Messiah or part of Collective Anonymous, then it would be a rare achievement for our men in blue. It is record time in tracking down the hackers that the Americans could not even get near to or smell them.
We are likely to read more about James Raj's story after he is charged in court tomorrow.
James Raj was found to have in his possession devices used for hacking and will be charged under the Computer Misuse Act. Faizal Mohd was arrested for spray painting the word Anonymous in a school. The latter is less likely to be linked to the Messiah given the nature of his act. And it is unsure how is James Raj related to The Messiah or connected at all.
If James Raj is The Messiah or part of Collective Anonymous, then it would be a rare achievement for our men in blue. It is record time in tracking down the hackers that the Americans could not even get near to or smell them.
We are likely to read more about James Raj's story after he is charged in court tomorrow.
May 13, Racial Riot in KL was created by ultra extremists in UMNO to get rid of Tungku Abdul Rahman
Gerakan Stalwart (Dr. Goh Cheng Teik) Backs Hadi's May 13 StandSubject: May 13 - 69
The truth about May 13 by Dr. Goh Cheng Teik
Now Malaysians know the truth about the May 13th 1969 incident. It was not a race based issue but rather an UMNO internal plot to ouster the Tunku by a group of UMNO leaders led by Dr Mahathir as alleged by Dato' Tamrin Ghaffar at a political ceramah in Johor on 29/4/2013.
This sly and slimy Mahathir together with a few UMNO leaders including Dato' Harun Idris wanted the Tunku to resign and allow Tun Razak to take-over. So they used the poor election performance of the Alliance party in 1969 to start the planned incident. They did not realise that the small incident on 13th May 1969 could blow up into such proportions.These are evil people with evil intentions. Subsequent to this, Tun Razak was installed as the new PM and later Mahathir was appointed as the Minister of Education.
However, to cover up and deflect the whole affair, UMNO blamed the incident on the Chinese and in particular the DAP for initiating the racial riots. This plot was used to unite the Malays under UMNO and was hatched by none other than Dr. Mahathir. Dato' Tamrin Ghaffar was very specific on this.
With the historians like Dr Goh Cheng Teik who was also a former Deputy Minister in BN now coming out to corroborate what Dato' Tamrin said and the revelation by the Tunku in the Star column " As I see it " clearly points to the fact that the May 13 incident was a plot hatched to remove the Tunku from office.
A Gerakan veteran emerged today to back PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang, who accused Umno of masterminding the May 13 racial riots in1969. Hadi told a political rally in Kuala Kangsar, Perak, on Monday that the bloody racial riots 44 years ago were orchestrated by Umno to cling on to power.
"May 13 was not an ethnic phenomenon. It was a political occurrence," former Gerakan leader Goh Cheng Teik told Malaysiakini. "Only those who were members of Umno or associated with it were involved. PAS members had nothing to do with May 13."Goh, 70, who served as a deputy minister and a Penang executive councillor 25 years, had done extensive research on the riots when he was a lecturer at Universiti Malaya and published a book, ‘The May Thirteenth Incident and Democracy in Malaysia', in 1971. He joined politics three years later and was appointed parliamentary secretary to then prime minister Abdul Razak Hussein.
According to Goh, the riots in Kuala Lumpur started even before the counter-procession was held by Umno in response to opposition victory marches in the wake of the unprecedented gains by PAS, DAP and Gerakan in the 1969 general election. "Members, supporters and well-wishers of a ruling party that prides itself in upholding the rule of law rioted before the start of a ‘victory' procession in front of the official residence of the Selangor state chief minister," he said. ( NB. The MB of Selangor then was Dato' Harun Idris whose official residence was at
Princess Road )
A day of shame and sorrow
Goh still believes there was no need for the nationwide declaration of the State of Emergency as the violence was localised, much like the recent militant incursion into Lahad Datu in Sabah, and argued that the riots were mostly politically-driven. "That is why the disturbances were not national in character, according to (then prime minister) Tunku Abdul Rahman, but virtually confined to Kuala Lumpur. "No serious breach of the peace or act of violence took place in any
other part of Peninsular Malaysia on or after May 13." The declaration of Emergency paved the way for the suspension of Parliament.
Goh, who holds the distinction of being Malaysia's first Harvard scholar, is currently an adjunct professor with Sunway University. Asked why he was speaking out on the issue now, he said young people today should know the truth behind May 13, an issue repeatedly raised in the ongoing campaign for Sunday's general election. "May 13 was not a day of glory for Malaysians. It was a day of shame and sorrow," lamented Goh.
The myth of contra trading
Contra trading is the field where small retail players play and try to
make money in a quickie. The truth is far from it. With a daily trading
volume of 2b to 5b shares traded, how many of these could be attributed
to small retail traders? Given the absence of phone calls and the
pittance that remisiers are getting as commission, (some are earning
less than a cleaner), contra trading by small retail traders cannot be
more than 5% of the daily volume.
This leaves 95% of the trades to be accounted for. House traders and day traders could at most contribute to 10 or 20% of the total trade. I would like to clarify that the numbers are ballpark figures, guesstimates. Only the SGX would know the truth. Who contributed to the 65-70% of daily trades? And are these trades contra or long term? My bet is that they are contra trades by the algo traders trading with their computers. And they are trading in and out daily, yes they are big contra traders.
The small retail traders hardly contribute much to the daily trading volumes. Killing contra trading would kill the small retail traders for sure, but most of all will also kill those big contra players trading with their machines. High Frequency trading is also contra trading. Without contra trading and a daily value of around $1b in trades, who would have the money to pick up these trades daily if not contra? Maybe the big players have the cash to do so, buying and paying several hundred millions daily for their trades.
The most important point raised by Goh Eng Yeow in his article today in the ST is this. ‘It is time the SGX planned for better system rather than spend money on purchasing faster engines. In the information technology trade, there is a saying: if the system is bad, a faster machine will only accentuate this fault.’ Goh Eng Yeow did not elaborate on what is bad in the system and how the system has to be changed to be better. Does he know something but politely refuse to say it out loud?
This leaves 95% of the trades to be accounted for. House traders and day traders could at most contribute to 10 or 20% of the total trade. I would like to clarify that the numbers are ballpark figures, guesstimates. Only the SGX would know the truth. Who contributed to the 65-70% of daily trades? And are these trades contra or long term? My bet is that they are contra trades by the algo traders trading with their computers. And they are trading in and out daily, yes they are big contra traders.
The small retail traders hardly contribute much to the daily trading volumes. Killing contra trading would kill the small retail traders for sure, but most of all will also kill those big contra players trading with their machines. High Frequency trading is also contra trading. Without contra trading and a daily value of around $1b in trades, who would have the money to pick up these trades daily if not contra? Maybe the big players have the cash to do so, buying and paying several hundred millions daily for their trades.
The most important point raised by Goh Eng Yeow in his article today in the ST is this. ‘It is time the SGX planned for better system rather than spend money on purchasing faster engines. In the information technology trade, there is a saying: if the system is bad, a faster machine will only accentuate this fault.’ Goh Eng Yeow did not elaborate on what is bad in the system and how the system has to be changed to be better. Does he know something but politely refuse to say it out loud?
A Third World Singapore emerging
A Third World Singapore is emerging after so many years of hard work. We
worked so hard, day and night, to achieve this dreadful state of being.
From the top to the bottom, we fear foreigners, not only of the
colonial master type but also from the Third World. And we are begging
for more to come and so afraid that they will leave.
They threatened our govt that they would pull out their businesses to other better places. And you could see their faces turning green and the legs went limp. Please don’t go, we need you to help us, we need your businesses.
And the foreigners knew that the Third World native citizens are good for nothing. So they brought in their talents, fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers to show the daft citizens how good they are. They brought in their friends, fixed up jobs for their friends, the whole villages, from New York to Manila, to replace the daft here.
And when they are unhappy with the daft citizens, you know what they will do. No prize for guessing. And we are so afraid to punish them, fearing that they will go back home, desert us and leave us in the lurch. We will bend our rules and backs to accommodate them.
And when they discriminate against the daft citizens, everyone turn the other way or the other cheek. Dunno leh, no one told me. Our ministers have to beg them to be nice to the daft citizens. Can you beat that? And what happened? They put up more advertisements to recruit more foreigners. What can you do about it, daftees? You need us, the foreign talents, the best from the whole Third World. You are at the bottom of the Third World league when your graduates are only good to be taxi drivers.
These foreign talents are so good that they could anyhow pick a piece of paper, print their names on it, and that would be good enough to be employed in this neo Third World City of no talents. And no one is good enough here to figure out if the certificates are real or forged.
Did this Third World City boast of world class universities? Yes, the universities are world class by virtue of the presence of world class Foreign Talent lecturers and world class foreign students. The locals are the daft admitted to rub off some goodness from the foreign lecturers and foreign students. The world class universities would soon be staffed by foreign talents as the daft local talents would not be good enough and not enough to fill the places. And who is paying for their exorbitant salaries and perks? The daft of course.
As each day passes, the locals get less confident of themselves, more fearful, dare not talk back or fight back, and resigned to third class status, or waiting to emigrate to be second class citizens elsewhere, which is a big improvement than be third class citizens in a Third World City. The presence of ‘talented’ foreigners may also make the locals feel inept, inadequate and useless, can’t find employment and can only hope to be self employed as taxi drivers and hawkers. These must be their life aspirations, and to buy a 3 or 4 rm BTO flats and feel like a millionaire, and take public transport everywhere.
They threatened our govt that they would pull out their businesses to other better places. And you could see their faces turning green and the legs went limp. Please don’t go, we need you to help us, we need your businesses.
And the foreigners knew that the Third World native citizens are good for nothing. So they brought in their talents, fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers to show the daft citizens how good they are. They brought in their friends, fixed up jobs for their friends, the whole villages, from New York to Manila, to replace the daft here.
And when they are unhappy with the daft citizens, you know what they will do. No prize for guessing. And we are so afraid to punish them, fearing that they will go back home, desert us and leave us in the lurch. We will bend our rules and backs to accommodate them.
And when they discriminate against the daft citizens, everyone turn the other way or the other cheek. Dunno leh, no one told me. Our ministers have to beg them to be nice to the daft citizens. Can you beat that? And what happened? They put up more advertisements to recruit more foreigners. What can you do about it, daftees? You need us, the foreign talents, the best from the whole Third World. You are at the bottom of the Third World league when your graduates are only good to be taxi drivers.
These foreign talents are so good that they could anyhow pick a piece of paper, print their names on it, and that would be good enough to be employed in this neo Third World City of no talents. And no one is good enough here to figure out if the certificates are real or forged.
Did this Third World City boast of world class universities? Yes, the universities are world class by virtue of the presence of world class Foreign Talent lecturers and world class foreign students. The locals are the daft admitted to rub off some goodness from the foreign lecturers and foreign students. The world class universities would soon be staffed by foreign talents as the daft local talents would not be good enough and not enough to fill the places. And who is paying for their exorbitant salaries and perks? The daft of course.
As each day passes, the locals get less confident of themselves, more fearful, dare not talk back or fight back, and resigned to third class status, or waiting to emigrate to be second class citizens elsewhere, which is a big improvement than be third class citizens in a Third World City. The presence of ‘talented’ foreigners may also make the locals feel inept, inadequate and useless, can’t find employment and can only hope to be self employed as taxi drivers and hawkers. These must be their life aspirations, and to buy a 3 or 4 rm BTO flats and feel like a millionaire, and take public transport everywhere.
Record questions to be asked in Parliament
117 questions will be asked in Parliament on Monday. 31 of these will be
asked by opposition MPs and NCMPs. This is 26% of all questions asked
by 10% of the MPs. Look at it from another perspective, 90% of the
ruling MPs will ask 74% of the questions. Is this material?
Should the people be saying, wow, so many questions asked in Parliament, the MPs are working very hard and making the ministers to work very hard as well? The same kind of question can be asked, we have so many ministers, second ministers, ministers of states, senior and junior, Parliamentary Secretaries and mayors! Whew, how many mayors did we have? Best govt in numbers. Would it be better to have best govt in quality and fewer in numbers?
In number terms, we must be very well run with so many pairs of hands working and so many talents worth their pay in charge. So why have so many questions asked? Either we have too many things that need questioning because things are not right and proper, or there is a competition and a prize for the most questions asked.
We also have so many foreigners here, so they must be contributing a great deal to the economy, or they are taking a great deal from the economy or causing a lot of problems to the country and people.
Is it a case of the more the merrier, more means good, or there is something called quality. A ton of shit would not worth more than a kg of gold surely. Don’t get me wrong, I did not know what they are asking and whether these are serious or very important questions or issues to be raised. I am just saying that numbers do not necessary mean quality stuff, but can be quality stuff. 10 good quality questions can make a lot of difference. I will make an effort to watch the news and read the papers to note the 117 questions to be asked on Monday. I hope every concerned citizen too will be watching too. We know that there are many big issues and some very serious that are affecting the people. Would these be raised in the 117 questions? It would be a big disappointment if none is raised in the barrage of questions tabled.
In case those questions you think are important are not asked, do not be annoyed. Please remember that what is important to you may not be important to them and vice versa. No need to pull your hair or stomp your feet. This is the reality of politics.
Should the people be saying, wow, so many questions asked in Parliament, the MPs are working very hard and making the ministers to work very hard as well? The same kind of question can be asked, we have so many ministers, second ministers, ministers of states, senior and junior, Parliamentary Secretaries and mayors! Whew, how many mayors did we have? Best govt in numbers. Would it be better to have best govt in quality and fewer in numbers?
In number terms, we must be very well run with so many pairs of hands working and so many talents worth their pay in charge. So why have so many questions asked? Either we have too many things that need questioning because things are not right and proper, or there is a competition and a prize for the most questions asked.
We also have so many foreigners here, so they must be contributing a great deal to the economy, or they are taking a great deal from the economy or causing a lot of problems to the country and people.
Is it a case of the more the merrier, more means good, or there is something called quality. A ton of shit would not worth more than a kg of gold surely. Don’t get me wrong, I did not know what they are asking and whether these are serious or very important questions or issues to be raised. I am just saying that numbers do not necessary mean quality stuff, but can be quality stuff. 10 good quality questions can make a lot of difference. I will make an effort to watch the news and read the papers to note the 117 questions to be asked on Monday. I hope every concerned citizen too will be watching too. We know that there are many big issues and some very serious that are affecting the people. Would these be raised in the 117 questions? It would be a big disappointment if none is raised in the barrage of questions tabled.
In case those questions you think are important are not asked, do not be annoyed. Please remember that what is important to you may not be important to them and vice versa. No need to pull your hair or stomp your feet. This is the reality of politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)