I said it is possible for the oppositions to win GRCs, but not because the PAP is complacent or slackening. It is just that some people think it is better to have more opposition MPs. Check and balance, accountability and transparency, they say. To do that you must have quality MPs.
I think the PAP also thinks it is possible for them to lose GRCs. So I believe they are prepared for this. Don't forget they always think long-term. I feel it really doesn't matter much. Unless there are some capable ones who perform very well, if not the oppositions MPs will just make more noise, the media will be very excited but after a half a year and a few sessions the excitement will die down.
Capable people who want to see changes in certain things they don't agree with are more likely to join the PAP. Because they agree more with the PAP than with the Oppositions and it is easier to get the changes inside the party than by opposing it. Or the ministers could convince them that what they do is best for the Country.
Of course there are people who say whatever the PAP does is wrong. I guess they are those with personal reasons, or those who just dislike the PAP or those who think freedom of speech is the only thing that matters even if they have to sleep on the street or eat bread crumbs.
With more and more foreigners becoming citizens, shouldn't the parties start recruiting able people from these foreign-born citizens. I'm not surprised if the PAP has already done so. In the future one or two ministers could be these citizens or their children.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Two-party System
A two-party system means there are two strong parties and each has wide support of the people. So any party can form the Government after a parliamentary election. It is not just about having an opposition party to check or oppose the Government.
Having enough good candidates is very important, if not how can you contest all the constituencies. At present, how many parties can field good candidates for all the constituencies? Only the PAP. So how to have two-party system.
If we want a two-party system, first the opposition parties should combine together. Then they should actively recruit good talented people to join them. To get people to join them, they must have a good manifesto and tell people what policies and programmes they would implement if elected.
If people think these policies and programmes good for the Country and would benefit the people, I believe good able people would consider joining the Opposition. Even those intending to join the PAP initially may switch to the Opposition.
Otherwise, the oppositions will just remain as oppositions, even if they win two GRCs which I think is possible. They would lose the GRCs at the next election if their MPs fumble. There won't be a two-part system.
Having enough good candidates is very important, if not how can you contest all the constituencies. At present, how many parties can field good candidates for all the constituencies? Only the PAP. So how to have two-party system.
If we want a two-party system, first the opposition parties should combine together. Then they should actively recruit good talented people to join them. To get people to join them, they must have a good manifesto and tell people what policies and programmes they would implement if elected.
If people think these policies and programmes good for the Country and would benefit the people, I believe good able people would consider joining the Opposition. Even those intending to join the PAP initially may switch to the Opposition.
Otherwise, the oppositions will just remain as oppositions, even if they win two GRCs which I think is possible. They would lose the GRCs at the next election if their MPs fumble. There won't be a two-part system.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Non-Chinese PM and GRCs
Non-Chinese PM
Even if we choose to have a non-Chinese PM, I don't think it necessary means that we are less race-conscious or more race-blind. There can only be one PM and I think we all agree that we let the best person do the job. There will still be other Chinese ministers.
Now, if we have no Malay or Indian ministers and the Malays and Indians don't mind, then we are really race-blind. Or if we have no Chinese ministers and the Chinese don't mind.
If this were to happen I believe everyone would mind because it is not a good thing. I feel that completely race-blind is not a good thing.
GRCs
If all our constituencies were single-seat and we really don't care about race, then we vote for the best candidate in each case. It could happen that in each case or in most cases the best turns out to be Chinese. Then we would have very few, or none, MPs from the minority races.
Then maybe we can have NCMP only from the minorities but I think no one likes that. Or we can stipulate that certain constituencies can only be contested by candidates from the minorities. Again I think no one likes that. So I think the better way is still GRCs.
GRCs are advantages to the PAP only because the oppositions do not have enough good candidates. There are quite a number of single-seat wards, how come the oppositions only won two seats. The same reason too. If the oppositions have enough good candidates, they have equal opportunities. Then they will not oppose GRCs, they may even like them.
Even if we choose to have a non-Chinese PM, I don't think it necessary means that we are less race-conscious or more race-blind. There can only be one PM and I think we all agree that we let the best person do the job. There will still be other Chinese ministers.
Now, if we have no Malay or Indian ministers and the Malays and Indians don't mind, then we are really race-blind. Or if we have no Chinese ministers and the Chinese don't mind.
If this were to happen I believe everyone would mind because it is not a good thing. I feel that completely race-blind is not a good thing.
GRCs
If all our constituencies were single-seat and we really don't care about race, then we vote for the best candidate in each case. It could happen that in each case or in most cases the best turns out to be Chinese. Then we would have very few, or none, MPs from the minority races.
Then maybe we can have NCMP only from the minorities but I think no one likes that. Or we can stipulate that certain constituencies can only be contested by candidates from the minorities. Again I think no one likes that. So I think the better way is still GRCs.
GRCs are advantages to the PAP only because the oppositions do not have enough good candidates. There are quite a number of single-seat wards, how come the oppositions only won two seats. The same reason too. If the oppositions have enough good candidates, they have equal opportunities. Then they will not oppose GRCs, they may even like them.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Do it right.
I would say if the Government had scrapped building the dormitory if would lose more votes. Residents who didn't sign the petition and some other Singaporeans would see this as a weak Government. And it doesn't mean that residents who are happy the project is scrapped will vote for the Government.
So, no need to worry about votes, just do what is right.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Investment & Risk (2)
These few days there were plenty of news about these investors who might lose all the money. They all mentioned that the bank advisors told them that their savings were safe. But fixed deposits also safe, how come they didn't put their money there.
Because these investments could give them higher returns. But no investors mentioned this. I guess because it would make them look greedy and no one wants to admit it. Maybe they would just get a bit more. But whether large amount or small amount, it is still greed. Or even if it is just some free gifts.
It is not wrong to try to get higher returns but when things turn bad, cannot everything blames it on people misleading you.
Furthermore, whatever the advisors said investors should know there are risks. Perhaps the only thing is that they didn't know they could lose everything.
Although I feel sympathetic for the investors, I think investors should bear 70% responsibility.
If this becomes a court case, the bank will have to defend itself.
Now the bank says it will take resposibility if there were wrong-doings but if goes to court the bank will try to prove that the investors themselves have to bear greater responsibility. They might be cross-examined by defence lawyers.Then it is no use for investors to appeal to emotions or say that it is all their life savings. And I think there are two things unfavourable to the investors:
1. Besides being 'misled' into thinking the investment was safe, another reason for investing in the product was because the investors were attracted by the high interest.
2. Since it has a higher interest than fixed deposits, investors should know there is some risk. Even if LB had not collapsed their investments would have dropped considerably in value.
So, even if the investors win the case, the most optimistic outcome is they get back 50% of their capital. They might lose the case too.
If I were an investor I would rather wait and see what the bank has to offer me.
Because these investments could give them higher returns. But no investors mentioned this. I guess because it would make them look greedy and no one wants to admit it. Maybe they would just get a bit more. But whether large amount or small amount, it is still greed. Or even if it is just some free gifts.
It is not wrong to try to get higher returns but when things turn bad, cannot everything blames it on people misleading you.
Furthermore, whatever the advisors said investors should know there are risks. Perhaps the only thing is that they didn't know they could lose everything.
Although I feel sympathetic for the investors, I think investors should bear 70% responsibility.
If this becomes a court case, the bank will have to defend itself.
Now the bank says it will take resposibility if there were wrong-doings but if goes to court the bank will try to prove that the investors themselves have to bear greater responsibility. They might be cross-examined by defence lawyers.Then it is no use for investors to appeal to emotions or say that it is all their life savings. And I think there are two things unfavourable to the investors:
1. Besides being 'misled' into thinking the investment was safe, another reason for investing in the product was because the investors were attracted by the high interest.
2. Since it has a higher interest than fixed deposits, investors should know there is some risk. Even if LB had not collapsed their investments would have dropped considerably in value.
So, even if the investors win the case, the most optimistic outcome is they get back 50% of their capital. They might lose the case too.
If I were an investor I would rather wait and see what the bank has to offer me.
Some investors want to band together to get a lawyer to negotiate with the financial institutions. I don't think it will help them to get more compensation or to get it faster as the FIs say they will look at it case by case. Even if those who band together have the same profile, there may be things they don't want to disclose to each other, like if they have invested in similar investments before.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Investment & Risk (1)
If you want to buy a household item, a TV set for example, most probably you would look for a reliable brand or at least a brand you are quite familiar with.
How come investors put all their savings or so much money in something they know little about. It was reported that the highest sum was $500,000 and some actually had intended to put their money in fixed deposit. All this sounds illogical.
Some were misled thinking that their investments were safe.
Or some just believed whatever the sales officers said. And some investors talked as if they don't understand English well and the officers explained in English. All the more they shouldn't sign right away. Why not go home and discuss with family members first. This looks more like foolishness of the investors.
I'm sure not all are misled. Maybe some are aware of the full risk and they want to take it.
I think investors should bear 70% of the blame. They are lucky if they get back 30% of their money back. The MAS could punish the banks or their officers but I doubt the Court could rule that the banks return all their money.
How come investors put all their savings or so much money in something they know little about. It was reported that the highest sum was $500,000 and some actually had intended to put their money in fixed deposit. All this sounds illogical.
Some were misled thinking that their investments were safe.
Or some just believed whatever the sales officers said. And some investors talked as if they don't understand English well and the officers explained in English. All the more they shouldn't sign right away. Why not go home and discuss with family members first. This looks more like foolishness of the investors.
I'm sure not all are misled. Maybe some are aware of the full risk and they want to take it.
I think investors should bear 70% of the blame. They are lucky if they get back 30% of their money back. The MAS could punish the banks or their officers but I doubt the Court could rule that the banks return all their money.
Monday, October 6, 2008
The Dormitory is not a prison
More selfishness and discrimination ....
"Please don't build the dormitory, the foreign workers will make noise to disturb our peace, the buses will pollute air in our estate. They will dirty the place and commit crimes."
"Please don't build the dormitory, the foreign workers will make noise to disturb our peace, the buses will pollute air in our estate. They will dirty the place and commit crimes."
"Please don't let them come into our estate."
Hear what some people say? Build a fence round the dormitory, they say, and on weekends make arrangements to take them far away. Isn't this absurd? Treating foreign workers like prisoners. Can't the workers take a stroll round the estate to relax?
Monday, September 15, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Hypocrisy and Selfishness
They claimed they were not against foreigners but in the same breath, what they said showed that they treated foreigners as potential criminals - they would steal our things, molest our daughters. Isn't this hypocrisy?
I think if you say this about other Singaporeans, they can sue you.
We would have to share our buses and other facilities with them; the value of our properties will drop. Isn't this selfishness?
Of course the MPs cannot say their voters are selfish.
But I think the project will still go on because if you don't do it here, then you can't do it in other residential estates as people would also complain.
I think if you say this about other Singaporeans, they can sue you.
We would have to share our buses and other facilities with them; the value of our properties will drop. Isn't this selfishness?
Of course the MPs cannot say their voters are selfish.
But I think the project will still go on because if you don't do it here, then you can't do it in other residential estates as people would also complain.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Bloggers' code of conduct ?
After reading the response in the papers by a group of bloggers to the list of proposals by the Panel formed to look into how to manage the new media, I got these impressions:
1. These bloggers look more like making demands than giving feedbacks.
2. They are only interested in getting what they want and didn’t give much thought to other aspects that are equally important.
3. They display an I-know-better-than-you attitude in contrast to The Panel's humble one.
The bloggers are only interested in the political part as if blogging is only about politics. Other aspect like pornography, they just dismiss it saying there are already laws to deal with it. Laws for pornography but no laws for politics?
There are thousands of pornographic sites or other undesirable sites and they did not give any suggestions how to handle them or at least minimize their impact.
And for the political parts they want no restrictions at all so they can say whatever they like. Bloggers just adhere to a code of conduct will do, they say. Hahaha, just make some simple rules and everybody follows or whether they adhere to the code or not, never mind. So simple!
It makes me think of the saying: Give you an inch you want to take one foot, or give you one cm you want to take 30cm.
I think it is better to take a cautious approach, doing things step by step. It takes years to build something but it can be destroyed in a very short time.
1. These bloggers look more like making demands than giving feedbacks.
2. They are only interested in getting what they want and didn’t give much thought to other aspects that are equally important.
3. They display an I-know-better-than-you attitude in contrast to The Panel's humble one.
The bloggers are only interested in the political part as if blogging is only about politics. Other aspect like pornography, they just dismiss it saying there are already laws to deal with it. Laws for pornography but no laws for politics?
There are thousands of pornographic sites or other undesirable sites and they did not give any suggestions how to handle them or at least minimize their impact.
And for the political parts they want no restrictions at all so they can say whatever they like. Bloggers just adhere to a code of conduct will do, they say. Hahaha, just make some simple rules and everybody follows or whether they adhere to the code or not, never mind. So simple!
It makes me think of the saying: Give you an inch you want to take one foot, or give you one cm you want to take 30cm.
I think it is better to take a cautious approach, doing things step by step. It takes years to build something but it can be destroyed in a very short time.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Rights and Concessions
I was thinking about rights and speakers’ corner.
First, about rights.
People desire a decent life. That means food, housing, affordable health care and opportunities to education and jobs. People can expect these rights from the Government they elected.
In some countries these rights are not met because the politicians are corrupt or the leaders do not govern the country well. People can vote for another government but it is no use if the politicians only care for themselves. The political parties tell untruths and accuse each other of wrongdoings. The people get disillusioned and find that they cannot trust any of them.
In some countries a certain race may get some special rights, but this should not be used to discriminate against other races.
Some people say allowing people to demonstrate is their right. As usual they will mention freedom of speech and expression as if it were some scientific principle that is applicable in all situations without any conditions.
Allowing people to demonstrate is a concession, not a right. It is just one of the ways for people to express their views. But if it jeopardizes the country’s security, for example, it could be banned. That was the reason why it was banned in our Country all these years.
It is all right to give people this concession but it comes with responsibilities. There should be conditions and restrictions for demonstrations too, for example demonstrators should be peaceful and they should not damage properties.
I think this concession will be expanded further in our Country if people make use of it responsibly.
In some countries people abuse this concession given to them:
1. The mass demonstrations in South Korea over the import of beef from US. Enormous resources were wasted. Finally, nothing much changed except there were losses and destructions. Everyone lost.
2. The recent demonstrations in Thailand. The demonstrators want to throw out a government the people have elected. And they are using force and threats. You call this rights and democracy. Does it mean people who don't like any future government can do the same. More like the Thais are going back to ancient times when people could only get rid of a ruler by assassination or by violence.
3. The demonstrations by The Green Camp and The Blue Camp against each other in Taiwan a few years back. They were frivolous and wasting everybody’s time.
First, about rights.
People desire a decent life. That means food, housing, affordable health care and opportunities to education and jobs. People can expect these rights from the Government they elected.
In some countries these rights are not met because the politicians are corrupt or the leaders do not govern the country well. People can vote for another government but it is no use if the politicians only care for themselves. The political parties tell untruths and accuse each other of wrongdoings. The people get disillusioned and find that they cannot trust any of them.
In some countries a certain race may get some special rights, but this should not be used to discriminate against other races.
Some people say allowing people to demonstrate is their right. As usual they will mention freedom of speech and expression as if it were some scientific principle that is applicable in all situations without any conditions.
Allowing people to demonstrate is a concession, not a right. It is just one of the ways for people to express their views. But if it jeopardizes the country’s security, for example, it could be banned. That was the reason why it was banned in our Country all these years.
It is all right to give people this concession but it comes with responsibilities. There should be conditions and restrictions for demonstrations too, for example demonstrators should be peaceful and they should not damage properties.
I think this concession will be expanded further in our Country if people make use of it responsibly.
In some countries people abuse this concession given to them:
1. The mass demonstrations in South Korea over the import of beef from US. Enormous resources were wasted. Finally, nothing much changed except there were losses and destructions. Everyone lost.
2. The recent demonstrations in Thailand. The demonstrators want to throw out a government the people have elected. And they are using force and threats. You call this rights and democracy. Does it mean people who don't like any future government can do the same. More like the Thais are going back to ancient times when people could only get rid of a ruler by assassination or by violence.
3. The demonstrations by The Green Camp and The Blue Camp against each other in Taiwan a few years back. They were frivolous and wasting everybody’s time.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Foreign-born citizens
I am very happy and proud that our Women Table Tennis Team won a silver at the Olympics 2008.
There are people who begrudge their achievement and belittle our Country's success because they say these sportswomen were not born in Singapore. I was thinking about this and why some people resent foreigners in our Country. I think they belong to one of the following groups:
1. This group still regard these new citizens as foreigners. They are just anti-foreigners for whatever reasons, for example they think foreigners take away their jobs. They will also be unhappy whenever foreigners are more successful than they.
2. This group are not anti-foreigners, but it seems they cannot accept the fact that these people have become part of Singapore and can contribute to our success.
3. This group consists of people who are not proud to be Singaporeans and are unhappy that foreigners want to be our citizens.
4. These are ordinary people who think we are treating foreigners too well and are unhappy that we give these sportsmen and sportswomen a big sum of money for bringing home the medals.
5. These are loyal Singaporeans who have doubts about the foreigners' loyalty to Singapore, that if our Country were to be in troubles they would just go away.
6. People who are simply jealous of them.
Just to elaborate a bit. For example:
Case1: A foreign sportsman applied for Singapore citizenship on his own and it was approved. He has a normal job and spends his spare time slogging on his sport.
If he didn’t win any medal, those cynical would say he is stupid.
If he won a medal they would say what is so great, he is not born here. Actually they are jealous of his success.
Case2: We had brought him here, granted him citizenship, and pay him a handsome salary just to play his sport with the objective of winning a medal.
If he didn’t win any medal, the same group would be happily sneering away.
If he gets a medal, they would say what is the big deal, we pay for it. Actually they are jealous of his success as well as the money we pay him.
I think even if a local-born Singaporean won a gold medal and we gave him the $1 million, these cynical people will also not be happy. They would say what for pay him so much, having the honour is good enough, it is his duty.
Those who are always harping about the birth place of our medal-winning new citizens need to look at ourselves too. Why are those with sports talents not doing it? I believe one reason is that they they are not willing to make the sacrifice and they cannot stand the hardship. I think Singaporeans are too soft; they don't know what is real hardship. So if we depend on them, another 48 years, we will still get nothing.
I hope as time passes most of these people will come to accept our foreign-born citizens as well as foreigners working for us.
There are people who begrudge their achievement and belittle our Country's success because they say these sportswomen were not born in Singapore. I was thinking about this and why some people resent foreigners in our Country. I think they belong to one of the following groups:
1. This group still regard these new citizens as foreigners. They are just anti-foreigners for whatever reasons, for example they think foreigners take away their jobs. They will also be unhappy whenever foreigners are more successful than they.
2. This group are not anti-foreigners, but it seems they cannot accept the fact that these people have become part of Singapore and can contribute to our success.
3. This group consists of people who are not proud to be Singaporeans and are unhappy that foreigners want to be our citizens.
4. These are ordinary people who think we are treating foreigners too well and are unhappy that we give these sportsmen and sportswomen a big sum of money for bringing home the medals.
5. These are loyal Singaporeans who have doubts about the foreigners' loyalty to Singapore, that if our Country were to be in troubles they would just go away.
6. People who are simply jealous of them.
Just to elaborate a bit. For example:
Case1: A foreign sportsman applied for Singapore citizenship on his own and it was approved. He has a normal job and spends his spare time slogging on his sport.
If he didn’t win any medal, those cynical would say he is stupid.
If he won a medal they would say what is so great, he is not born here. Actually they are jealous of his success.
Case2: We had brought him here, granted him citizenship, and pay him a handsome salary just to play his sport with the objective of winning a medal.
If he didn’t win any medal, the same group would be happily sneering away.
If he gets a medal, they would say what is the big deal, we pay for it. Actually they are jealous of his success as well as the money we pay him.
I think even if a local-born Singaporean won a gold medal and we gave him the $1 million, these cynical people will also not be happy. They would say what for pay him so much, having the honour is good enough, it is his duty.
Those who are always harping about the birth place of our medal-winning new citizens need to look at ourselves too. Why are those with sports talents not doing it? I believe one reason is that they they are not willing to make the sacrifice and they cannot stand the hardship. I think Singaporeans are too soft; they don't know what is real hardship. So if we depend on them, another 48 years, we will still get nothing.
I hope as time passes most of these people will come to accept our foreign-born citizens as well as foreigners working for us.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Foreigners
Some Singaporeans think they are very smart. They look down on people who can't speak English. Can they be smarter than the Chinese or Indians? No. The only thing is that they are given opportunities to good education and jobs. Many Chinese and Indians are more intelligent but just that they don't have the opportunities. And Singaporeans are fortunate to be born in a land where they are taken good care of and where things are well-planned.
Now, if we were to be just a mediocre city with corrupt politicians, there would be a different course in history. Singaporeans would be worse off than our Asian neighbours because we don't have natural resources and water. We don't even grow our food. Investors wouldn't come to invest and foreigners wouldn't come here to work. Some of our women would have become maids or prostitutes in other countries. Other countries would not want our men. What is it that our men can do that their own citizens cannot do? None. We would be preoccupied with bread and butter issues instead of having the luxury to grumble about ERP charges or arguing about freedom of speech and human rights.
A few words about ERP. Motorists have long been given notice that they are going to pay more and more for road usage with reductions in other taxes and fees. So I see the recent hikes as part the plan to make motorists pay more for road usage and to encourage them to take public transport. I foresee more ERP gantries and higher charges to come. I remember reading somewhere someone jokingly said there would come a day when, once you leave the car park at your house there would be a gantry.
Some private car owners will give all sort of excuses why they need their cars. They say public transport is not efficient. They need the car to fetch their children or for this and that ...But there are many people in their situation and they have no cars. So the main reason is that they are reluctant to give up their cars.
Motorists can keep their cars but will have to use less of the road. They should plan their journey to optimize fuel and road usage. Take public transport too.
Now, if we were to be just a mediocre city with corrupt politicians, there would be a different course in history. Singaporeans would be worse off than our Asian neighbours because we don't have natural resources and water. We don't even grow our food. Investors wouldn't come to invest and foreigners wouldn't come here to work. Some of our women would have become maids or prostitutes in other countries. Other countries would not want our men. What is it that our men can do that their own citizens cannot do? None. We would be preoccupied with bread and butter issues instead of having the luxury to grumble about ERP charges or arguing about freedom of speech and human rights.
A few words about ERP. Motorists have long been given notice that they are going to pay more and more for road usage with reductions in other taxes and fees. So I see the recent hikes as part the plan to make motorists pay more for road usage and to encourage them to take public transport. I foresee more ERP gantries and higher charges to come. I remember reading somewhere someone jokingly said there would come a day when, once you leave the car park at your house there would be a gantry.
Some private car owners will give all sort of excuses why they need their cars. They say public transport is not efficient. They need the car to fetch their children or for this and that ...But there are many people in their situation and they have no cars. So the main reason is that they are reluctant to give up their cars.
Motorists can keep their cars but will have to use less of the road. They should plan their journey to optimize fuel and road usage. Take public transport too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)