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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.WalkoverSome 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.
