Majullah Singapura

No room for complacency

2012-01-05T17:06:00.002+08:00

Death caused by food poisoning, escape of Mas Selamat, flooding in Orchard Road, breakdown of MRT trains, error in tests by the Science Laboratory …

One positive outcome of these happenings is that they make people wake up from their complacency. Not just the authorities, but Singaporeans at large. Singaporeans have been so used to our efficiency and security that some of us are taking them for granted. There is no 100% guarantee.

These unpleasant happenings are actually quite minor compared to the inefficiencies and corruptions in other countries.

Singaporeans should mentally be prepared for these problems and inconveniences or even disasters. We should tell ourselves that these things could happen. Probably there isn’t much you can do when one does happen but at least you accept it and you won’t be too panicky.

It would actually be good for Singaporeans to go through a period of economic hardship. Then they will treasure what our Country has achieved and not take them as if all these were their rights.

I also think it is good to let Singaporeans experience a dose of poor governance. The day will come when we cut the pay of our political leaders by 50%. Then Singapore will be run by people of lesser stuff and not much smarter than you and I. Another possibility is when we have a coalition government formed by opposition parties with each party insisting that the Country be run its way.

My view on the Presidential Election

2011-08-29T11:16:00.002+08:00

Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian

Tan Kin Lian tried too hard to be popular. He also made pledges that people know can’t be fulfilled. Having spoken out for some investors who lost their money doesn’t make him Voice of the People. That he wants to be Voice of the People makes him appear egoistic.

Tan Jee Say is confrontational. His supporters and team-mates re-in-forced that impression. He should have told his supporters to behave themselves. At his rally he should also have told the speakers to tone down the rhetoric and not to spread untrue rumours about another candidate. Most of the people at his rally were his supporters and there was no need to appeal to them. He only needed to persuade those who had not decided and had come to see whether they should vote for him. I guess they went away with a negative impression.

If either of them had dropped out of the contest, I think Tan Cheng Bock would have won.

Tan Cheng Bock and Tony Tan

Now, don't assume that supporters of Tony Tan are against Tan Cheng Bock and vice versa. I think many of them support both but it is just a matter of their order of preference.

If one of the Tans dropped out of the contest, I think the other Tan would have obtained at least 60% of the votes.

MPs are the voice of the people

2011-08-19T08:53:00.007+08:00

The MPs are the voice of the people. The president is elected only for its role and entrusted with the tasks as stated in the constitution.

Tan Kin Lian and Tan Jee Say talk as if they have the right to tell the Government how to run the Country. They behave as if they know more about law than the Law Minister or the experts in constitutional laws.

The two of them who have never even been an MP before think they know more about the governing of a country than the ministers or MPs.

The President should also be a good and able diplomat, enhancing our image abroad. He should not be quarrelsome and confrontational.

If either of them were to be president, I think he would only bring disrepute to himself. Even people who had supported him would be disillusioned when they realized they had been fooled by empty promises in the campaign. Even foreign leaders would not respect him.

This is what I think:

Tan Jee Say has a personal agenda – to further the opposition’s cause, particularly the SDP.

Tan Kin Lian still feels sore about having to leave INCOME. He didn’t want to join an opposition party as an ordinary member to contest the general elections in May because he considered that below his status. An ordinary MP also gets little attention from the media.

Contesting in the presidential election under the slogan ‘Voice of the People’ boosts his egoism - the people give feedback to him instead of the MPs. He is more powerful than all the MPs combined.

Drug trafficking

2011-06-27T13:00:00.002+08:00

Why the Death Sentence for drug traffickers is still needed .....

The neutral voters

2011-05-29T16:39:00.002+08:00

According to political analysts, of all the voters, 25% are pro-PAP and 25% pro-Opposition. To these two groups, the candidates and policies matter very little.

The remaining 50% belong to the neutral group. Probably they base their decisions on the qualities of the candidates, the policies, their trust of the parties and their desire for more opposition MPs.

The results: PAP 60% and Oppositions 40%. If we exclude the 25% of the partisan voters from both sides, the ratio is 35 to 15. That means the PAP got 70% of votes from the neutral voters while the oppositions got 30%.

This shows most people have trust in the PAP and its candidates and accept most of its policies. So there is no need for the PAP to feel too badly about the drop of 6% in votes from the previous election.

There is also no need for it to go out of the way to try to please those who didn’t vote for the PAP.

Actually, with the huge amount misinformation, rhetoric and noise made by the pro-opposition group and the PAP still got 60%, it is a very good mandate indeed.

Congratulations to Tin Pei Ling

2011-05-11T13:03:00.003+08:00

Three cheers to Pei Ling for her courage, determination and conviction.

If Nicole Seah were to be subjected to the same criticisms and unkindness as Pei Ling had, probably she would have broken down, cried and stepped down from her contest.

First World Parliament

2011-05-01T15:50:00.002+08:00

A First World Parliament is a wishy-washy thing. Not everyone, including WP’s supporters, agree with the conception espoused by Mr Low.

The voters in Aljunied has only to consider two outcomes:

1. Singapore loses a very good foreign minister who creates goodwill and makes friends for Singapore all over the world. Aljunied residents also forgo the plans the PAP team has promised them.

2. Parliament loses the leader of the opposition, Mr Low who has been MP for Hougang for a very long time.

Would they want the Best Driver or a Driver without licence?

The SDP said they have no gay agenda. But it is a real concern. If there is a gay MP, the gay community will ask him to bring up the issue again in Parliament.

The NSP makes use of its star attraction, a young woman candidate, in Marine Parade to attract crowds, especially male Singaporeans. It gives the impression that their other males candidates, one of whom was a former MP, are rather impotent. It might gain some supporters but it also alienates others. It is somewhat like drink stalls using young beer hostesses to attract male drinkers.

Low vs Chee vs Tin

2011-04-25T01:50:00.003+08:00

Low Thia Kiang is a good opposition, passionate and diligent, but he is not very smart. Look at his insurance analogy. Maybe now he realizes it is not a good one. Why not just say: We want to form the government in the long run. Support us. Give us the opportunity.

I think he gave little thought to his manifesto too. His price-of-new flats suggestion would definitely lower the prices of existing flats. Now the WP has to feebly defend it.

Mr Low doesn’t have the courage to go out of his Hougang comfort zone. If he had done that five years ago, probably the WP would have got a GRC already.

Chee Soon Juan was the ‘star catch’ of Chiam See Tong who was later ousted from the party he founded by his star-catch. Chee has been called a liar and a cheat. But he didn’t do anything about it. Why? Because he champions America-style democracy. You can defame anyone and you won’t be sued. Maybe he also approves gay marriage and allowing people in Singapore owning guns.

He also disapproves of certain laws. Instead of trying to convince people, get himself into parliament to try to change these laws, he intentionally broke the laws.

Mr Chee has not changed. He and his party still want to bring down our system, only that they don’t want to shout about it during the election period.

If there were a three-corner fight between Low, Chee and Tin Pei Ling, I would support Pei Ling, the courageous young woman who stands up for Singapore.

Investment, not Insurance

2011-04-11T02:06:00.001+08:00

Mr Low said that voting for the WP is like buying insurance so that the WP could form the government if the PAP fails. How could it be?

Do we buy insurance from a company that has no means to deliver, merely hoping that it might be able to do so in future. Isn't it foolish?

We should invest in a good strong company with proven track records.

GRCs for the Opposition

2011-04-04T12:10:00.004+08:00

The oppositions could get two GRCs but probably that is as far as they could go. There will not be a two-party system. For a small Country, we have too many opposition parties.

No single opposition party will have enough able and committed people to form a government. Even the PAP finds it hard to get these people. And with their avoid-three-corner-fight agreement, it makes things worse. People in some constituencies who wish to vote for the better opposition party could not do so because it has given in to weaker parties.

To have a strong opposition, the smaller opposition parties should merge with the bigger and established parties. Instead of that, we saw opposition members switching parties or breaking away to form new parties.

It seems that these parties cannot even agree on what is good for Singapore. Or perhaps the party chiefs do not want to give up their leader title. For example, if the RP joins the WP, then the RP chief would be,at best, No.3 in the WP.

Need for strong leadership

2011-02-03T15:08:00.000+08:00

The world is in quite a messy state. Our Earth is sick, the weather is playing havoc and natural disasters are getting worse. Then there are the threat of terrorism, currency disputes and chaos and disorder in several parts of the world. All this and together with rapid changes in our society, many Singaporeans have a sense of unease.

In such uncertain time it is all the more important to have a stable government and strong political leadership. The government can do little in some cases but in many matters, whether it is financial or law-and-order, a strong effective government can give its people a sense of well-being and security.

Generally we have an efficient civil service and a trusted judiciary. Some of us think that things will be as usual whoever runs the Country. I do not believe this to be so. Without strong political leadership, services and standards will decline, and probably corruption would rear its ugly head again.

You see violent and bloody demonstrations in some countries. The demonstrators do not care about their fellow countrymen who do not want the violence. This is not about democracy or human rights. It is anarchy and selfishness. Some want to change a bad government.

In Singapore, we don’t need violence to change the government. We use our vote.

Stability is needed for peace, investments and jobs. Vote for good governance and a strong government.

The Death Penalty

2010-08-03T15:45:00.002+08:00

Following a recent spat of child rapes in Malaysia there are calls for the death penalty for rapists of children. One most horrendous case was of a school bus driver raping a 10-year-old girl.

The Malaysian Home Minister said that the death penalty may not deter future rapists.

Now, which law or which punishment can stop people from committing offences or crimes? The things to consider are if it can reduce the number of such crimes and whether the punishment fits the crime.

The death penalty also cannot stop people trafficking drugs or committing murders. But it makes would-be offenders think thrice and the punishment fits.

I believe most people who oppose the death penalty are kind folks whose reasons are based on religious or moral grounds. They do not wish to see another life taken no matter what despicable things the criminal did even if it happened to their own families. But I think all this is misplaced compassion.

Litter bugs and Caning

2010-07-13T10:12:00.002+08:00

Punishments for foreigner litter bugs

For low-skilled foreigner litter bugs, I think a fine is a better deterrent than a CWO. These workers are already doing the menial jobs which have low wages. A CWO means they sacrifice some of their free time but a fine would make them feel the pinch more.

On the other hand, for professional foreign workers with high pay, a CWO would have a greater deterrent effect. (In case you do not know, CWO stands for corrective work order - for example sending litter bugs to clean up a certain place.)

Caning of criminals

Some people don't like the caning of criminals. They say it is inhuman, archaic, etc. But these reasons are not good enough for us to do away with caning. I believe caning is a deterrent. Putting aside the deterrent effect, people who committed certain sex acts or violent robberies that caused grievous harm to others should be caned.

Election changes

2010-05-02T11:52:00.000+08:00

I think the opposition parties are paranoid about election changes. Every time the Government makes changes regarding election matter, they think only of the negative - the PAP is scheming against them and any change will always be to their disadvantage.

Let us look at recent changes:

The cooling-off day is neutral. It is not to any party’s disadvantage if it has confidence in itself and has been doing the right thing during the campaign period.

The increase in the seats for NCMP is to the oppositions’ advantage.

When we vote in a parliamentary election, we are choosing the Government. So we pick the party we have faith in; a party that we think can take good care of the Country. In the last election, probably this was what 60 plus percent of the voters who voted for the PAP thought. They wanted the PAP to run the Country.

Does it mean that the 30 plus % of the voters want the oppositions to govern the Country? I would say not all of them. These voters can be divided into two groups, A and B. Group A probably want the oppositions to be the Government whereas Group B only want some opposition MPs or they are sympathetic to oppositions and so want to give them a chance.

If you look at it this way, the percentage of voters who actually support the PAP in running the Country could be about 80%.

Now, if the NCMPs do well in parliament, more opposition candidates will be voted directly into parliament in future elections. There will be less and less NCMPs. The oppositions will also be able to attract better people and things will improve for them.

If the NCMPs do not perform well, things will remain much the same. People in Group B will still want some opposition MPs or are still willing to give them a chance.

let's keep it this way

2010-04-25T22:27:00.001+08:00

Some days ago I was behind a rubbish truck. I followed it for about 30 metres before there was space for overtaking. There were two foreign workers doing the hard work.

This is one of the foreign workers doing upgrading work in my neighbourhood.

As you know, there are also many other jobs which Singaporeans do not want to do.

No, I'm not going to say that Singaporeans are lazy, choosy and cannot endure hardship. Looking at it from another angle, isn't it fortunate that we don't need to do the tough jobs like the two I mentioned above. Shouldn't we try to keep it this way so that our children, grand-children, ... need not do these jobs too.

That means we need growth, a strong economy and a stable and well-managed Country that can attract talents and investment.

Voting age and Walkover

2010-03-24T17:50:00.000+08:00

Voting age

On and off some people will bring up the issue of voting age - why not lower it to 18, they say. And their favourite reason is that because 18 is the age for NS call-up. If these youngsters are deemed mature or responsible enough to defend the Country, they should be allowed to vote.

Why should the voting age be linked to the call-up age? I feel that they would be more mature after NS, not when they start.

I believe 18 was chosen for NS mainly because of convenience. It is possible to lower the NS age to 16 or even 15. At that age the youths can also be trained to defend the Country. Suppose we had chosen 16 as the call-up age, are we going to suggest lowering the voting age to 16?

Or if we raise the NS age to 20, are we going to suggest the voting age be 20?

I think if we don’t have very good reasons, let's stick to 21.

Walkover

Some people think that if there is no opposition contesting in a constituency, the residents there should be allowed to vote to show whether they support the ruling party.

This is a waste of resources and the result doesn’t reflect the true view of the people.

The oppositions have enough members but they do not want to contest because they know they could not win.

Putting aside the anti-PAP and pro-PAP voters, the majority will vote for the better candidates in an election. If there are only PAP candidates, some of this majority will vote against the PAP as they might feel this is a way to pressurize the Government into putting off unpopular policies like raising fees.

And I believe many will not go to vote as they think it is meaningless.

Race and Football

2010-01-22T01:36:00.003+08:00

Do away with race identity?

I do not think doing away with race identification would make us a better society or a more harmonious one. The colour of your skin is still the same and you still have the physical features associated with your race.

People will take advantage of the system. For example, a company may decide to hire only people of one race. And soon you will find that residents in some blocks of HDB flats belong to only one race.

World Cup

When SingTel got the rights for the EPL matches, football fans grumbled and complained because they thought they had to pay more. They said competition was bad and they wanted back monopoly.

Now that no one had yet got the rights to the World Cup matches, football fans grumbled again. They blamed SingTel and they criticized everyone including MDA and Singapore Pools for not helping them to pay for their hobby. But they never criticize FIFA, the main culprit.

Why not raise fund from football fans to help pay part of the cost demanded by FIFA. And, in four years time, they will have to raise more fund because FIFA would demand more.

Someone said fooball is a national passion. Football does not qualify to be a national passion. What percentage of Singaporeans are football fanatics? 50%? One million? If there are so many passionate football fans, I think SingTel would pay the amount as it could collect back the money from them.

Second chance

2009-10-01T21:13:00.007+08:00

I think most of us are willing to give a person who is a former criminal a second chance. That means we will treat him as one of us ordinary citizens and also employers will treat him equally when he applies for work.

However, I guess a bank, for example, will not employ anyone who has committed any financial crime. Or a school will not let someone who has molested young children to teach its kids. The public would also have doubts about letting them in these jobs.

I think they can also stand for parliamentary elections after a certain number of years but whether people support them or not is another thing. Giving people a second chance doesn't mean forgetting what they have done.

I was thinking of what our Miss Beautiful Singapore said. She is beautiful and has a charming smile. We like that. But from what she said, as reported in the papers, it seems she just put her crimes as something she did when she was young and rash. When asked why she didn’t tell the organizers about her crimes and her conviction, she said “it’s not as though it’s that big …”.

Even primary school pupils know that it is wrong to steal things. So if you are a teenager or if you are less than 18, it doesn’t make you less wrong. When Miss Beautiful did not declare her conviction when she first applied to join the contest, she committed another dishonest act, forgetting that she has been given a second chance.

If from the start Miss Ris Low had declared her conviction, her application would be rejected. Then she would not have to go through the ordeal. So I would say she has to bear the greater part of responsiblity.

Is prostitution legal in Singapore?

2009-09-04T17:45:00.004+08:00

Most of you know that soliciting is illegal in Singapore. That means you cannot offer your sex services on the street or in any public place, harass people or stand around with a placard hanging on your breasts to advertise your services. You probably also know that prostitution is not illegal in Singapore. But is it legal?

Though not illegal, I think it is not legal either; because :

First, the Government doesn’t recognize it as a legal business, at least not yet. The prostitutes and brothel owners don’t have to pay taxes and brothels don’t have to pay for a licence. If it is legal the Government would be taxing them. This would not look good on the Government because it is getting money from immoral earnings.

Second, if it is legal, there would be some written rules and regulations. If the brothel owners or prostitutes think that the anti-vice authorities are unfair to them, they could complain or write to the papers. They could also form an association or union to fight for their rights.

Right now, they just have to abide by certain rules which can be amended any time and the AV can suspend them for a short period if they breach any rule or in more serious cases, close down the brothels or send the prostitutes back home.

Third, the Government cannot close down a legal business. But if the Government suddenly decides to close down all the brothels, it can do so but probably it will give them two years’ notice.

So I think the brothels are just authorized to do their business, not legalized and the prostitutes are not 'legal' but registered so that they can be better managed and to ensure they go for health check-up.

Praises for Singapore

2009-08-30T11:40:00.001+08:00

Singapore as role model

2009-08-29T08:57:00.002+08:00

Like any loyal citizen, I am proud that others praise us .....

The loyal oppositions

2009-08-21T10:40:00.001+08:00

What our opposition leaders said about our pledge. They agreed that it is an aspiration we should adhere to, something which is always relevant.

Our Pledge

2009-08-13T18:05:00.003+08:00

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 & progress for our nation

I still remember the pledge. I think many of us do because we have been saying it for years in school. I think it is quite a marvelous piece of work.

It is still as relevant now and in the future as it has been in the past.

Unlike countries with thousands or hundreds of years of history, building a nation in Singapore is never job-done. It is always on-going. We will not reach the perfect stage where everyone is happy and peace and prosperity are assured. So every generation will build upon what we have already achieved and improve on it.

There will always be threats and crises. And with more immigrants settling down here, we need to constantly remind ourselves of the words ‘regardless of race, language and religion’.

Happiness is where your heart is

2009-08-07T14:06:00.003+08:00

One significant factor that contributes to your happiness is loving your country. If you dislike your country, think of migrating and see only faults in this and that everyday, how can you really be happy. Hopefully you can go to the country you want and it welcomes you and treats you well.

Loving your country doesn’t mean you like everything and have no complaints. No, you may still complain and find faults in many things. However, you also see the positive side of things you don’t like. You know that in certain things there is no permanent ideal solution.

You still feel the stress in your life and in your job. But you are also grateful for the things that you have and you appreciate the love and help your family members and friends give you.

You may like to have gambling and prostitution banned altogether, but you know it cannot be done and you live with it. You understand that it is not possible for you to like every policy.

The grass looks greener on the other side. But when you go to the other side, you realize that it is the grass in Singapore that is greener. Your home is Singapore.

A fair outcome

2009-07-21T12:50:00.001+08:00

One-quarter of the investors who lost their money investing in the structured products got full compensation and two-thirds got partial compensation. This is better than what I had expected.

Everyone should take responsibility for his own action. We cannot just blame the financial institutions and say the investors themselves are faultless. During those boom time, high returns ranked higher in the investors’ mind than safety and risks. And who would have thought that they would lose all their money.

The investors, even the old and uneducated, should bear some responsibility too. Sorry, if I sounded a bit harsh but I believe this is the truth.

It would be unfair if you compensate everyone or compensate investors equally.

So I would say the case-by-case approach is the right way and the outcome is fair.

Frivolous petition

2009-06-08T11:36:00.005+08:00

This is a report in the papers about people signing a petition for Ms Lee Bee Wah to step down as the president of STTA.

Now, if the organizers were there together with say 1% of those who signed online. And they posed for reporters and gave their views on the matter. This would have given their cause a great lift.

Instead the organizers didn’t come. Also none of those who signed online came. The people hired to look after the forms played hide and seek with reporters. Maybe most of these people just want to have their say but are not willing to stand up for what they say. I don’t think people would take them or their petitions seriously.

I think the petition is a frivolous one.

Ms Lee was merely stating the criterion required for a coach to be nominated for the Coach of The Year Award. It didn’t imply that Mr Liu was lacking in these things. Perhaps not enough - say you need a grade A+ to be nominated, but Mr Liu just got an A.

Suppose I were a coach in a company and my boss told me those were the criterion for promotion. If my colleague was promoted but I was not, I wouldn’t say that my boss had questioned my integrity, commitment or professionalism. It meant I had to work harder.

A wise move

2009-05-30T23:26:00.003+08:00

I said before that it is possible for the oppositions to win two GRCs and that the PAP also thinks so and is prepared for it. The recent announcement that nine seats will be given to the oppositions seems to support my view.

This is a wise move. It helps PAP MPs and Singaporeans to psychologically prepare for it and the PAP to save face if the oppositions really win one or two GRCs. It could say 'we have anticipated this and reserved seats for them'.

The oppositions should not keep on harping about abolishing the GRCs. GRCs are necessary. The two WP MP and NCMP know very well in their heart that without the GRC minority candidates may not get elected. I have already elaborated on this in an earlier post.

One of the reasons why some people don't vote for the opposition is that the opposition doesn't have the strength or ability to form the government. These people do not agree completely with the PAP policies but they do not want to vote an opposition just for its own sake.

I would say the WP, for example, should make governing Singapore as its long-term goal and work towards it.

Homosexuality and Mas Selamat

2009-05-19T19:35:00.002+08:00

Homosexuality
A manual in Aware's sex education programme for schools said that “anal sex is normal and healthy”. The anus is for us to excrete solid waste material. Putting your penis in a shit hole is definitely not normal and not healthy.

We can accept homosexuality and accommodate homosexuals but we cannot teach our pupils that anal sex is normal.

Mas Selamat
It was reported that our JI leader swam across to Johore. I wonder if this information came from his own mouth. It might be true. Or he might just be pulling our legs because it is not in his interest to let us know his method.

But of course it is also possible, notwithstanding his slight handicap and that he was not a good swimmer. We have heard how shipwrecked people survived for days floating in the sea without food. And there are handicapped people doing incredible things.

Aware, H1N1 and Complacency

2009-05-05T19:41:00.003+08:00

In my view one good thing that comes out from the unsuccessful takeover of Aware – if there really are people in Aware who are trying to promote lesbianism or homosexuality, now they will not be able to do it. Hope that Aware will also be more vigilant about members making use of the organization to promote their own views whether on lifestyle, sexuality or religion.

Just like the escape of the JI leader and the Rojak food poisoning, this saga again reminds us not to be complacent and take things for granted. Maybe the old Aware leaders did not expect that there are people who will scrutinize their sex education programme.

Similarly we should not be complacent about the H1N1 virus too. When there are more information about the virus and scientists find that it is not too dangerous or does not spread easily, then we can relax a bit. Meanwhile we should practise good personal hygiene. If we are sick we should see a doctor and stay at home as far as possible so as not to spread our illness to others.

Proper way to wash your hands

2009-04-28T17:44:00.012+08:00

About H1N1 Flu, please click here:

http://foodasmedicine.blogspot.com/2009/04/dr-joe-bresee-swine-flu.html

Don't take things for granted

2009-04-15T00:22:00.003+08:00

When certain things happened here some people said ‘how can this happened in Singapore?’ Why not, I say?

Unexpected maybe but why cannot happen here? God also cannot guarantee you this. Whether food-poisoning or other mishaps, it just takes someone’s moment of carelessness, inattentiveness or laziness and it could happen.

Even if every stall in a hawkers' centre has an A grade and the centre is cleaned everyday you still cannot 100% guarantee no food-poisoning. Cleanliness is just one thing, personal hygiene and attitude are more important. If just one hawker is too lazy to wash his hands after going to the toilet, you could get food-poisoning already.

I think many Singaporeans are taking things for granted. They have been living in a well-governed Country all along and have not gone through sufferings and pains.

I was thinking of more terrible things that could happen, like a massive blackout, or a bomb exploding.

Cannot happened in Singapore??? I would say probability is very low but not impossible.

Light touch for the internet

2009-04-14T20:50:00.002+08:00

Rules for the internet

2009-03-08T18:15:00.001+08:00

First, a law is there not just to punish people. It also shows our disapproval of things like anti-social habits or to reflect values of our society.

The anti-littering law is an example. If everyone is considerate and responsible we don’t need this law, but this is not so.

Most litterbugs are not caught but we can’t do away with the law. Otherwise, people will have no second thought about throwing a tissue on the street and young people will grow up thinking it is all right to litter.

It is the same with the jaywalking law or the seat-belt law. Many offenders are not caught but one day they might pay for it dearly as some already had. But these laws are there actually to protect people.

The law that criminalizes gay sex is another example. I believe the police generally ignore such activities. The law is there to reflect our emphasis on family values and that we do not want to encourage homosexual behaviour.

The internet

The reasons I mentioned above apply to the internet too although some people say the rules cannot be enforced so no point having them.

As we have seen, racist and anti-religion remarks are not tolerated. A few people have been punished for this.

Then there are people who tell untruths and some others who are abusive and rant rubbish, all under the cloak of anonymity.

We don’t have to be bothered by people who talk rubbish or use vulgar language because we can pick them out easily. They are like a mad woman cursing loudly on the street. These people are generally unhappy with their life, frustrated with their own problems.

As for untruths, some people say no need to worry, readers can separate the thrash from the facts. But not everyone is so logical or rational or have the knowledge. And many are school students or young people.

There needs to be rules and regulations too, even if difficult or not possible to enforce.

First, it shows we don’t condone certain things. Second, there is always a nagging fear in these people’s mind that their identities could be exposed.

Oral sex

2009-03-04T12:50:00.002+08:00

It was reported that a Malaysian politician was being investigated again because he had oral sex. And oral sex is against the law.

Anyway if a couple do it in their room no one would be bothered. The Malaysian police have better things to do then to investigate people’s sexual activities.

Some people think it is an archaic law and should be scrapped. They say oral sex is common.

How common? 80% of couples do it? Is it just common among city folks who claim themselves to be open-minded.

By the way, even if something is common does it mean it is right? I am not just referring to oral sex, for example it could be prostitution, cheating or littering.

Prostitution is illegal in some countries although we know it is common in these countries. How come the law is not scrapped.

I believe the anti oral sex law still has relevance in Malaysian society and will not be repealed.

Three cheers for Singapore

2009-02-23T01:00:00.004+08:00

Strong Government, strong economy and strong army – these are crucial for Singapore. Besides for our own well-being, it enables us to deal firmly with pressure and demands from our neighbours, negotiate trade packs and other agreements with other countries and participate in international missions. Which country would want to cooperate with us or help us if we can’t defend ourselves and have little money.

Foremost is an efficient, strong and non-corrupt government. In future if no party can provide that, it is bad omen for our Country. But that doesn’t mean no oppositions in Parliament. But we must have competent ones who put the Country’s interests in first place.

I believe certain things will not change whichever party forms the Government: People who are a threat to our security will still be detained. People who defame others will still be sued. Say-all-the-nonsense-you-like type of free speech will not be allowed. That also applies to controversial issues on race and religions.

If we have a mediocre Government, Singapore will be no different from other Asean countries. There will be strikes, confrontations and even chaos because being a small country, a few incidents could spread and affect the whole country rapidly. Troublemakers might stir up racial tensions. Why then would investors, foreigners or even tourists want to come here. Who would want to become our citizens.

And there must be the rule of law. Some people may think a certain law is silly but a law is made only after careful considerations. You may not agree with it, but I believe there is a reason or purpose for a law to be there.

Cut GST to stimulate spending?

2009-02-09T11:17:00.001+08:00

Will people spend more if the GST is cut?

Say a poor family that spends about $2000 or less a month and saves little or nothing. If the GST is reduced by 2%, the family can buy a bit more with the $2000 or it spends less on the same amount of things and save about $40.

Or say another family that spends about $4000 pm and saves $200. If the GST is reduced, probably it will still spend $4000 but I don’t think it will spend more by using the money budgeted for saving.

Also people in the lower-income group might spend more if they are thinking of buying a costly item. But this is not something that happens frequently.

If you take a rich family that spends $8000 or more. The rich is not bothered by GST. If the GST is reduced, it will continue its normal lifestyle. Since prices are lower, it will spend less than $8000.

So I don’t think cutting the GST will encourage people to spend more. Instead the Government will collect much less revenue from the rich, the amount of which can be used to help the poor.

Foreign-born Ministers?

2008-11-24T18:33:00.005+08:00

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.

Two-party System

2008-11-19T18:32:00.001+08:00

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.

Non-Chinese PM and GRCs

2008-11-14T10:53:00.001+08:00

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.

Do it right.

2008-11-03T20:39:00.003+08:00

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.

Investment & Risk (2)

2008-10-18T23:51:00.008+08:00

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.

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.

Investment & Risk (1)

2008-10-12T09:40:00.002+08:00

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.

The Dormitory is not a prison

2008-10-06T20:30:00.005+08:00

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 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?

Besides Hong Lim Park

2008-09-15T21:50:00.001+08:00

Other ways to find a life companion, for yourself or for your children .....

Hypocrisy and Selfishness

2008-09-10T09:21:00.001+08:00

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.

Bloggers' code of conduct ?

2008-09-06T09:19:00.001+08:00

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.

Rights and Concessions

2008-09-04T09:17:00.001+08:00

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.

Foreign-born citizens

2008-08-20T09:10:00.001+08:00

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.

Foreigners

2008-06-28T09:08:00.001+08:00

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.