Lost in Singapore?
It had to happen. After 14 years of hashing in Singapore, I finally could not find my way out of the forest!
Yesterday on the Seletar HHH run, the trail as set by the hares, went from the Venus Drive carpark, through the forest and into the catchment area - once we got to the road leading up to the water storage tanks.
The hares warned that the run is through old trails that have become overgrown. But, again, we are hashmen. Nothing like this intimidates us.
As the run proceeded (more of a walk really), it was getting to be rather difficult with the overflowing growth of thorny undergrowth. I was with Prime Prick and was later joined by Deep Hole. The sweep, Brown Eye, arrived and went past us! Instead of doing the sweeping, he just scooted off into the shiggy.
We continued. It is amazing that even though Singapore is one degree north of the equator, at this time of the year, there is a noticable shortening of daylight with the sunset happening at least 10-20 minutes earlier. By 7pm we were pretty much groping in the dark - the thick canopy and the thorny obstacles were of no help and constant reminders of needing to be extra careful.
To their credit, the hares (Up Yours, Three KG and Pantat Bersih) did mark the trail well - the flour on the tree trunks were luminiscent (I wonder why that is so), and there were also luminiscent leaves on the forest floor - perhaps this is because of the leaves being stomped on. Gotta find out why they glow, albeit dimly.
We did push through inspite of the difficulties and reached a last point where we could not see any more trail markings. Thankfully, of the three of us, I was most able to spot the markings and sorta lead the way. We reached one spot and that was about the last marking we could see - on the left was the water's edge (from the reservoir), ahead there were no markings and to the right it was upslope, again with no markings.
As any true hashman, the next most obvious path to check would be to the left. I ventured out and started walking into the water, only to realize that the water was getting deeper than the calf. No, I ain't going there - not in the dark.
We figured that there is nothing else we can do and as any experienced hashman would, we stayed put on the last spot and on trail/paper. Let's just sit down and wait for the hares to come out looking for us.
I reckon it must have been about 7:30 - 7:45 then. The wonderful watch I have has a glowing keypad, but no light to see the time! Damn Casio - for 20 cents you could have put in a bulb/LED. Prime Prick and Deep Hole both had no way check time as well.
Resigned to the prospect of waiting out, we sat on a log and starting chatting. I think that was good - it certainly helped in passing the time. All I can say is that for the first time, I actually felt dehydrated. Sweaty and tired and with a zillion thorn scratches certainly did not help.
I am glad that we did chat - although I was doing most of the talking - time just went past. Somehow, the topic centered around Linux and open source (duh!). Deep Hole said that the Oracle deal in supporting Red Hat Enterprise Linux is going to cause problems for RH (DH is an accountant, but a techically clued in one, I must say). My retort was that what is happening is that Oracle is now working for Red Hat. They want to take RH stuff and strip out RH's trademarks and logos etc and sell it as theirs. DH wondered if that would fork Linux. I told him that it would be the case if the code was proprietary and not GPL. The beauty of the GPL is that you cannot hide things and one vendor fixing an issue will benefit all vendors. DH was not aware of that. [Note to self: How many others are like him? Need to work on public education on this.] We continued chatting and I told him that things are changing finally in Singapore as well - the "IT regulators" are now under pressure from up high to get a clue and bring open source into Singapore in a big way.
As the conversation proceeded, we heard the beautiful "R U" echoing through the forest. I shouted out "On On. Three hashmen here - Never Come, Prime Prick, Deep Hole". Through the spaces in the heavy bush we could make out flash lights shining. And finally, it were the two of the hares - Up Yours and Three KG. As expected, they came from the left side from the other side of the water body. UY crossed the water body some 10 meters back from where we were where the water was ankle deep. I should have checked that part - but in the dark, it was hard to figure these out. We crossed over and then up a couple of embankments and not more than 20 meters away it was a trail! Damn, we were just 30 or so meters from a track that would have seen us get back to the run site much earlier!
Got back to the top of the hill where the water storage facility is and we had a welcome back party comprising, the GM, Sticky Tissue (with a parang ready to do the needful), and Hornbill. GM managed to get a golf cart from the SICC to come up as well to help get us out. Hornbill got me to ride on his Big Bike instead. To the refrains of "Rock On Amadeus" we were cruising down the road to Venus Drive.
Once I got back at the run site, Whip was on hand with a microphone-look alike to ask me what happened. Read all of that above.
Anyway, it was a great experience, save for the thorns. Getting "lost" was not a concern for me, frankly. I knew someone would come in looking for us. The key was to keep to the trail.
I was back home at 10:45 pm and in bed by 11:45 pm - completely drained!
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
Monday, September 04, 2006
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Where is the SG equivalent?
I think this is an incredibly useful site to be able to locate the transmitting towers of the cell phone providers. The jury is still not out on what the real impact of the various GSM, 3G etc signals are doing to all of us, especially in this urban environment.
I think this is an incredibly useful site to be able to locate the transmitting towers of the cell phone providers. The jury is still not out on what the real impact of the various GSM, 3G etc signals are doing to all of us, especially in this urban environment.
Monday, July 17, 2006
It is sad that this person holds such views and if you listen to the latter part of the interview, he seems to be completely out of touch with the reality. The column is a humour column. If MITA thinks that the rag stepped out of their play pen, the editors and management should be taken to task not the columnist.
It has been described many a times that the so called "main stream media" is a government mouthpiece. I think it is wrong. They are actually finger puppets. They do not have a body and all they have is a painted face with a non moving mouth (hey at least they have a mouth, Hello Kitty does not have it!). Every so often, these marionettes show an independent thought only to have the supporting finger withdrawn!
I am wondering what constitutes "main stream media"? If a publication is not supportive of the government script, will it be deems alternative and therefore non-main stream? So, if the Edge carried mrbrown's column, this turn of events would not have happened? My sense is that the "main stream media" is a red herring. mrbrown was being targeted because of the bak chor mee satire and this was an easy 1-2 punch. Could Mr TalkingCock.Com be next?
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Don't Cry My Singapore - don't let the PAPy harm you!
I am deeply concerned that this country of mine seems to be tottering on an increasing level of non-tolerance for opinion that is not an echo of the ruling regime. Case in point is the humour challenged response to mr brown's blog-to-paper posting. Clearly there is a tripping of fuses that were held back during the election scam. Wong Kan Seng (a deputy prime minister at that) was shown to be wanting to place eloquent questions against James Gomez which were all then satirically put together by mr brown in a podcast. The humour challenged honchos at the ministry of information management had to bite their tongue and did not do anything - were they perhaps waiting for an opportunity to swing at mr brown? His column must have served as fodder and they chose to launch an attack which cost him his column with the rag that published his column. I am certain in the circles that got stung by the bak chor mee podcast, they must have popped a bottle (or two) of champagne. Will CNetAsia suffer the same fate?
The ruling regime would like the population to believe that they cannot possibly contribute anything useful (lack of talent you see) and that there are only a few "local talent" who can do things and so they shall be piled with a lot roles (a certain investment arm ceo comes to mind). But, I have, on the other hand, confidence that Singaporeans are brilliant people (save for those brainwashed by PAPy) and here's an example of it (No, I have no idea what the song is about, save that it is in Chinese - Cantonese I think).
I am deeply concerned that this country of mine seems to be tottering on an increasing level of non-tolerance for opinion that is not an echo of the ruling regime. Case in point is the humour challenged response to mr brown's blog-to-paper posting. Clearly there is a tripping of fuses that were held back during the election scam. Wong Kan Seng (a deputy prime minister at that) was shown to be wanting to place eloquent questions against James Gomez which were all then satirically put together by mr brown in a podcast. The humour challenged honchos at the ministry of information management had to bite their tongue and did not do anything - were they perhaps waiting for an opportunity to swing at mr brown? His column must have served as fodder and they chose to launch an attack which cost him his column with the rag that published his column. I am certain in the circles that got stung by the bak chor mee podcast, they must have popped a bottle (or two) of champagne. Will CNetAsia suffer the same fate?
The ruling regime would like the population to believe that they cannot possibly contribute anything useful (lack of talent you see) and that there are only a few "local talent" who can do things and so they shall be piled with a lot roles (a certain investment arm ceo comes to mind). But, I have, on the other hand, confidence that Singaporeans are brilliant people (save for those brainwashed by PAPy) and here's an example of it (No, I have no idea what the song is about, save that it is in Chinese - Cantonese I think).
(courtesy of YouTube)
Stress more on sciences, less on second language
[The following appeared in the July 11, 2006 edition of the straits times]
I AM very glad to see the launch of the Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council. The council's deputy chairman, Dr Tony Tan, observed that efforts to create new job opportunities will need Singaporeans and it would be a shame if the posts have to be filled by more 'foreign talents'.
That is a very telling statement. Why is it that we are not creating more deep-thinking engineers, mathematicians, biologists, chemists and physicists?
For the answer, we need not look any further than the school system. Instead of spending time and effort in the hard sciences, engineering and mathematics, our students are spending large amounts of time on Second Language (euphemistically labeled 'Mother Tongue').
Take, for example, my son who is in Primary 3. He has 10 Second Language periods a week, while having only three Science, 11 Mathematics and 13 English periods.
I do not expect him to be a master linguist, but I do expect him to be able to maintain a level of competency in the Second Language he is learning (Malay, which is not even his 'mother' tongue). He is also learning Mandarin (outside school hours) at a conversational level because I think it is fun to learn languages in general.
However, I would want him to be able to spend a significantly increased amount of time, in school, doing Science/Mathematics (at the expense of reduced Second Language exposure) for that is what is going to be of more critical use to him than any second language.
I would, therefore, urge the Education Minister to review the disproportionate amount of time spent on Second Language and reallocate the time to the sciences immediately. At least, students should be offered a choice to do more sciences or Mathematics and less of Second Language.
The present one-size-fits- all model is untenable and I am sure the Ministry of Education is well aware of this.
I dream of seeing a Singaporean win a Nobel prize in my lifetime, but the current skewed emphasis on Second Language means that this is, at best, a pipe dream. Years of exposure to a scientific and enquiring environment is needed before it will pay dividends.
If a significant amount of time during the formative school years is taken up trying to cope with Second Language (and the additional tuition classes), I think we are fooling ourselves in believing that we can have the type of mindset that an innovating economy needs.
I am not advocating a total eradication of Second Language, but a significant rolling back of the emphasis, perhaps to the levels when I was in school from 1966-1977, during which Second Language ended at Secondary 4 and was not a criterion for the pursuit of further education.
Harish Pillay
[The following appeared in the July 11, 2006 edition of the straits times]
I AM very glad to see the launch of the Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council. The council's deputy chairman, Dr Tony Tan, observed that efforts to create new job opportunities will need Singaporeans and it would be a shame if the posts have to be filled by more 'foreign talents'.
That is a very telling statement. Why is it that we are not creating more deep-thinking engineers, mathematicians, biologists, chemists and physicists?
For the answer, we need not look any further than the school system. Instead of spending time and effort in the hard sciences, engineering and mathematics, our students are spending large amounts of time on Second Language (euphemistically labeled 'Mother Tongue').
Take, for example, my son who is in Primary 3. He has 10 Second Language periods a week, while having only three Science, 11 Mathematics and 13 English periods.
I do not expect him to be a master linguist, but I do expect him to be able to maintain a level of competency in the Second Language he is learning (Malay, which is not even his 'mother' tongue). He is also learning Mandarin (outside school hours) at a conversational level because I think it is fun to learn languages in general.
However, I would want him to be able to spend a significantly increased amount of time, in school, doing Science/Mathematics (at the expense of reduced Second Language exposure) for that is what is going to be of more critical use to him than any second language.
I would, therefore, urge the Education Minister to review the disproportionate amount of time spent on Second Language and reallocate the time to the sciences immediately. At least, students should be offered a choice to do more sciences or Mathematics and less of Second Language.
The present one-size-fits- all model is untenable and I am sure the Ministry of Education is well aware of this.
I dream of seeing a Singaporean win a Nobel prize in my lifetime, but the current skewed emphasis on Second Language means that this is, at best, a pipe dream. Years of exposure to a scientific and enquiring environment is needed before it will pay dividends.
If a significant amount of time during the formative school years is taken up trying to cope with Second Language (and the additional tuition classes), I think we are fooling ourselves in believing that we can have the type of mindset that an innovating economy needs.
I am not advocating a total eradication of Second Language, but a significant rolling back of the emphasis, perhaps to the levels when I was in school from 1966-1977, during which Second Language ended at Secondary 4 and was not a criterion for the pursuit of further education.
Harish Pillay
Friday, July 07, 2006
So, Mahathir jokes about bombing Singapore. I have no issue with him saying that for I know the context it is said, but I think, this time, the silence on the part of the Singapore government is in a sense good. No need for stupid remarks to counter silliness (quite unlike the stupidity of the MICA reply to MrBrown's column).
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Monday, June 05, 2006
Channel X: This is what worries the PAPy.
Once a minister - I believe it was Teo Chee Hean - who was reported to have said that "ideas can be dangerous". Perhaps it was out of context. At the IPS seminar last week, I was troubled by what Tarn How said about how he felt that those who saw "The Singapore Rebel", would have a change of heart about Dr SJ Chee. I am sure he was not suggesting anything like what Chee Hean said, but the implications can be enormous.
Just as this video (from http://channel-x.blogspot.com):
projects, the messaging and clarity of information can be presented in compelling fashion given the right tools. What is more important, IMHO, is to not artificially chain regular media so that they too can be honest with their chosen profession and not be pawns to be played into the hands of a self-appointed few.
Once a minister - I believe it was Teo Chee Hean - who was reported to have said that "ideas can be dangerous". Perhaps it was out of context. At the IPS seminar last week, I was troubled by what Tarn How said about how he felt that those who saw "The Singapore Rebel", would have a change of heart about Dr SJ Chee. I am sure he was not suggesting anything like what Chee Hean said, but the implications can be enormous.
Just as this video (from http://channel-x.blogspot.com):
projects, the messaging and clarity of information can be presented in compelling fashion given the right tools. What is more important, IMHO, is to not artificially chain regular media so that they too can be honest with their chosen profession and not be pawns to be played into the hands of a self-appointed few.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Session III - The Future of the parties
Chaired by Gillian and panelists included Derek da Cunha, Indranee Rajah, Sylvia Lim, Vincent Yeo and Chee Siok Chin.
Derek da Cunha:
- The 06 distribution of popular vote:
wp: 38.4%, sda: 32.5%, sdp: 23.2%, pap: 66.6%
- three themes: performance of the parties, issues and trends in SGP, prospects and trends of the parties
- SDP's fortunes are out of whack because of their loose canons.
- SDA's politics is gentlemanly because of Chiam ST
- WP seems to be doing all the right things, post-JBJ. There seems to be a "mainstreaming" of the WP this time around and if this keeps up, it could mean that the longtail event of WP taking over or at least being the 2nd party of a functional two-party parliament could be a reality.
Political Spectrum:
Sylvia: "Worker's Party: Hope For The Future?"
2006: Pleasant Surprises:
- fate of SM Goh's "mission" - a disaster.
- open rejection of selective upgrading
- role of cyber community despite threat of illegality
- voter behaviour pre and post election
Awakening of politics in the population - forced to make a choice? Exercising the vote.
Vincent Yeo: SDA, exco member of National Solidarity Party: I just felt that he was rambling and really could not get a sense of what he was trying to propose except at the very end when he stated that the loose coalition of parties that form the SDA could be merged into one party for the next election. So, no more PKNS, NSP, and whoever else makes up the SDA. Probably a good thing.
Chee Siok Chin: SDP exco member. Are opposition political parties in control of their future? SDP's future uncertain because of the suit from the father and son team. She reported that at a NUSS event last week, she repeated the call for election reform citing the excessively unfair stacking of the field in favour of the PAP. Roadmap for Democracy: many areas for reform, 1) reform has to come from the people not from the ruling party. People have to work for reform. June 27th case on declaring 2006 elections null and void.
Indranee: people and policies. cyberspace? Disappointed (perhaps set my expectations too high) that there was nothing new in what she had to say. She is a 2nd term non-elected member of parliament - a WOMP (Walk Over MP) - ie, no moral right to the seat in parliament even if the law says she can.
Comment by Cherian George:
"A tale of two parties. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It used to be the best of times for sdp and worst of times for wp. those were the days. how it has changed! and dramatically too. hard to believe that it was all the doing the of the PAP and the media. Image can be fashioned not only be foisted upon you." This was in reponse to Siok Chin's comment that the compliant media made her and the SDP look like morons while the WP and others were not treated as harshly.
Chaired by Gillian and panelists included Derek da Cunha, Indranee Rajah, Sylvia Lim, Vincent Yeo and Chee Siok Chin.
Derek da Cunha:
- The 06 distribution of popular vote:
wp: 38.4%, sda: 32.5%, sdp: 23.2%, pap: 66.6%
- three themes: performance of the parties, issues and trends in SGP, prospects and trends of the parties
- SDP's fortunes are out of whack because of their loose canons.
- SDA's politics is gentlemanly because of Chiam ST
- WP seems to be doing all the right things, post-JBJ. There seems to be a "mainstreaming" of the WP this time around and if this keeps up, it could mean that the longtail event of WP taking over or at least being the 2nd party of a functional two-party parliament could be a reality.
Political Spectrum:
Left center-left centre-right
PAP
WP
SDA
SDP
Sylvia: "Worker's Party: Hope For The Future?"
2006: Pleasant Surprises:
- fate of SM Goh's "mission" - a disaster.
- open rejection of selective upgrading
- role of cyber community despite threat of illegality
- voter behaviour pre and post election
Awakening of politics in the population - forced to make a choice? Exercising the vote.
Vincent Yeo: SDA, exco member of National Solidarity Party: I just felt that he was rambling and really could not get a sense of what he was trying to propose except at the very end when he stated that the loose coalition of parties that form the SDA could be merged into one party for the next election. So, no more PKNS, NSP, and whoever else makes up the SDA. Probably a good thing.
Chee Siok Chin: SDP exco member. Are opposition political parties in control of their future? SDP's future uncertain because of the suit from the father and son team. She reported that at a NUSS event last week, she repeated the call for election reform citing the excessively unfair stacking of the field in favour of the PAP. Roadmap for Democracy: many areas for reform, 1) reform has to come from the people not from the ruling party. People have to work for reform. June 27th case on declaring 2006 elections null and void.
Indranee: people and policies. cyberspace? Disappointed (perhaps set my expectations too high) that there was nothing new in what she had to say. She is a 2nd term non-elected member of parliament - a WOMP (Walk Over MP) - ie, no moral right to the seat in parliament even if the law says she can.
Comment by Cherian George:
"A tale of two parties. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It used to be the best of times for sdp and worst of times for wp. those were the days. how it has changed! and dramatically too. hard to believe that it was all the doing the of the PAP and the media. Image can be fashioned not only be foisted upon you." This was in reponse to Siok Chin's comment that the compliant media made her and the SDP look like morons while the WP and others were not treated as harshly.
Session II: "Electoral Authoritarianism' No More? The Future of the political system in Singapore.
Prof Wang Gungwu. member of the board of governors of the IPS is now introducing the next session.
Panelists:Janadas Devan, Viswa Sadasivan and Ken Kwek.
Janadas:
- phlosophical analysis of 2006 elections
- seeking to be deceived?
- compares SG/MY with TW/KR/HK in the 60s. He made a good set of points about how in the 60s, MY and SG were really the leading lights in democracy, regularly held elections etc and TW/KR were ruled by generals and HK by the Brits. Those three countries were not democratic by any stretch of the imagination, and yet, 30 or so years later, they have surpassed SG in creating and maintaining a perception of liberal democracy. SG, in the meantime, has stayed stagnant. Yes, we do have regularly held elections, but there is missing the X factor.
- he suggested that the way SG evolved the political system today can be traced back to a by-election held in June/July 1995 in Hong Lim. The PAPy had lost two preceding attempts at winning that seat and when it fell vacant, the by-election was seen as a chance to prove itself to stand up to the Tengku and UMNO. When the election was over and the PAPy won that seat, there was a sense of thumping one's nose at KL which probably snowballed to the ejection of Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia on August 9 1965. The thesis is that the by-election was the turning point in the PAPy gaining stronghold in Singapore and explains how they continued to bulldoze through subsequent election. I think it is an interesting theory. In Gladwell terms, that was the tipping point. I think that there has been another tipping point at this election with the WP winning a substantial mindshare. In 10 years, we can probably verify that this was indeed the key event that toppled the PAPy's stronghold only to be replaced by another party's!
Viswa:
- larry diamond's paper quoted
- independent election commission
- most countries have it. esp commonwealth countries. Canada, USA, Malaysia, Romania, S Korea. They have tenure as well. What is it that we do not have it? Does having it make the level playing field? Who chooses the members? Will they have tenure?
- constitutional boundaries: made know well in advance. Popular belief is that is is redrawn to favour the PAP. 15K voters moved from Marine Parade to Aljunied via GerryMandering? Amazing isn't?
- Adequate time and scope for campaigning. 9 days is what we have legally and it does no one any good. Of course the PAPy benefits as they have been able to use the government machinery *before* the elections to project themselves.
- adequate and fair info in media
- pork barrel politics should be avoided. We do not have to do it, we are Singapore!
- right of citizens to vote; vote to be secret; I hoped that he would have brought up the need to invalidate the walkover scheme as it robs the very essence what it means to be able to exercise the very right to vote and participate.
- fair and established framework: law applies well. defamation action seems to work in favour of the ruling party.
- conclusion: there is no fair and complete system. we need to keep improving it none the less. Good and honest introspection.
Ken:
- every election over the last 15 years labelled "watershed". but what is a watershed election?
Q&A:
- PAP monopolizing the definition of "talent". Talent is what they define it to be and not what is generally accepted. They claim they have the "talent" within their party. How can that be an honest statement?
- "We rule, you shop" compact
- "stomachs full, minds empty"
- The US is referred to as a aircraft carrier on which any dancing and jiggling will not upset the ship, however, Singapore is a sampan which cannot afford that kind of a shake. The suggestion is that we cannot continue to be a sampan and we have to become a catamaran - two hulled and balanced. Two hulled in that we have a functioning two party system with checks and balances in parliament.
Prof Wang Gungwu. member of the board of governors of the IPS is now introducing the next session.
Panelists:Janadas Devan, Viswa Sadasivan and Ken Kwek.
Janadas:
- phlosophical analysis of 2006 elections
- seeking to be deceived?
- compares SG/MY with TW/KR/HK in the 60s. He made a good set of points about how in the 60s, MY and SG were really the leading lights in democracy, regularly held elections etc and TW/KR were ruled by generals and HK by the Brits. Those three countries were not democratic by any stretch of the imagination, and yet, 30 or so years later, they have surpassed SG in creating and maintaining a perception of liberal democracy. SG, in the meantime, has stayed stagnant. Yes, we do have regularly held elections, but there is missing the X factor.
- he suggested that the way SG evolved the political system today can be traced back to a by-election held in June/July 1995 in Hong Lim. The PAPy had lost two preceding attempts at winning that seat and when it fell vacant, the by-election was seen as a chance to prove itself to stand up to the Tengku and UMNO. When the election was over and the PAPy won that seat, there was a sense of thumping one's nose at KL which probably snowballed to the ejection of Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia on August 9 1965. The thesis is that the by-election was the turning point in the PAPy gaining stronghold in Singapore and explains how they continued to bulldoze through subsequent election. I think it is an interesting theory. In Gladwell terms, that was the tipping point. I think that there has been another tipping point at this election with the WP winning a substantial mindshare. In 10 years, we can probably verify that this was indeed the key event that toppled the PAPy's stronghold only to be replaced by another party's!
Viswa:
- larry diamond's paper quoted
- independent election commission
- most countries have it. esp commonwealth countries. Canada, USA, Malaysia, Romania, S Korea. They have tenure as well. What is it that we do not have it? Does having it make the level playing field? Who chooses the members? Will they have tenure?
- constitutional boundaries: made know well in advance. Popular belief is that is is redrawn to favour the PAP. 15K voters moved from Marine Parade to Aljunied via GerryMandering? Amazing isn't?
- Adequate time and scope for campaigning. 9 days is what we have legally and it does no one any good. Of course the PAPy benefits as they have been able to use the government machinery *before* the elections to project themselves.
- adequate and fair info in media
- pork barrel politics should be avoided. We do not have to do it, we are Singapore!
- right of citizens to vote; vote to be secret; I hoped that he would have brought up the need to invalidate the walkover scheme as it robs the very essence what it means to be able to exercise the very right to vote and participate.
- fair and established framework: law applies well. defamation action seems to work in favour of the ruling party.
- conclusion: there is no fair and complete system. we need to keep improving it none the less. Good and honest introspection.
Ken:
- every election over the last 15 years labelled "watershed". but what is a watershed election?
Q&A:
- PAP monopolizing the definition of "talent". Talent is what they define it to be and not what is generally accepted. They claim they have the "talent" within their party. How can that be an honest statement?
- "We rule, you shop" compact
- "stomachs full, minds empty"
- The US is referred to as a aircraft carrier on which any dancing and jiggling will not upset the ship, however, Singapore is a sampan which cannot afford that kind of a shake. The suggestion is that we cannot continue to be a sampan and we have to become a catamaran - two hulled and balanced. Two hulled in that we have a functioning two party system with checks and balances in parliament.
What do voters want?
Gillian is presenting the survey results. Indicative data not representative. Sample size is 985 persons.
Good set of questions being asked in the Q&A. Of them, a question about how many people did not/declined to participate in the survey was asked. According to the survey company, 70% declined. Apparently this is not entirely surprising as indicated because there seems to be a common underlying drop out rate from surveys.
This itself is interesting though. How many times when approached by survey folks outside MRT stations, did you just say no. I know I do it regularly. It is annoying and I cannot remember when it was that I last obliged with a response.
Having said that, it is probably likely that this survey - a phone survey - would have been something I would have participated in given that the topic would be of interest to me.
The person whose company did the survey said that although the turn down rate was 7 out of 10, the 30% that did agree inevitably had a lot to say. The 20 minutes which the survey was supposed to last, went on to 25, 30 minutes as the people just wanted to talk and talk.
I think this survey is interesting and is long overdue. We need to do this on a regular basis, both pre and post election. I know the ruling party does not like opinion polls done in the usual way and I think the blogging community should rise up to this and try to figure out how to do this reliably. We need baselines to do honest analysis. Somehow, the ruling party has missed the boat on this regard - and it would apprear that they still have no clue, probably being held back by Lee Sr.
Gillian is presenting the survey results. Indicative data not representative. Sample size is 985 persons.
Good set of questions being asked in the Q&A. Of them, a question about how many people did not/declined to participate in the survey was asked. According to the survey company, 70% declined. Apparently this is not entirely surprising as indicated because there seems to be a common underlying drop out rate from surveys.
This itself is interesting though. How many times when approached by survey folks outside MRT stations, did you just say no. I know I do it regularly. It is annoying and I cannot remember when it was that I last obliged with a response.
Having said that, it is probably likely that this survey - a phone survey - would have been something I would have participated in given that the topic would be of interest to me.
The person whose company did the survey said that although the turn down rate was 7 out of 10, the 30% that did agree inevitably had a lot to say. The 20 minutes which the survey was supposed to last, went on to 25, 30 minutes as the people just wanted to talk and talk.
I think this survey is interesting and is long overdue. We need to do this on a regular basis, both pre and post election. I know the ruling party does not like opinion polls done in the usual way and I think the blogging community should rise up to this and try to figure out how to do this reliably. We need baselines to do honest analysis. Somehow, the ruling party has missed the boat on this regard - and it would apprear that they still have no clue, probably being held back by Lee Sr.
Wireless is ON!
It is nice to be able to blog a conference live in Singapore. Thanks to the Orchard Hotel making available wireless - dare I say for free!
Prof Tommy Koh has just started his welcome address. I have very high regard for him and I have great expectation of this forum. So far things are looking good. There are 48 tables of about 6-9 persons each.
Prof Koh is posing a set of questions for discussion and he has just touched on "Internet" and it's influence on the election. By the looks of it, I think I am the only one blogging.
An independent elections commission? Thanks Prof Koh for bringing it up. We need it.
Arun: 400 persons here! Wow! Says that this is the first time IPS is doing a post election forum and survey. There is hope in this country after all!
a. all adullts are eligible to vote
b. vote is secret
c. all parties can contest
d. judiciary independent
e. rule of law
survey about
It is nice to be able to blog a conference live in Singapore. Thanks to the Orchard Hotel making available wireless - dare I say for free!
Prof Tommy Koh has just started his welcome address. I have very high regard for him and I have great expectation of this forum. So far things are looking good. There are 48 tables of about 6-9 persons each.
Prof Koh is posing a set of questions for discussion and he has just touched on "Internet" and it's influence on the election. By the looks of it, I think I am the only one blogging.
An independent elections commission? Thanks Prof Koh for bringing it up. We need it.
Arun: 400 persons here! Wow! Says that this is the first time IPS is doing a post election forum and survey. There is hope in this country after all!
a. all adullts are eligible to vote
b. vote is secret
c. all parties can contest
d. judiciary independent
e. rule of law
survey about
Was doing some analysis of the 06 results.
Of the total number of voters, 2,158,704, only 56.65 people were allowed to actually vote. 935,820 persons were denied their right to vote by the illegal walkovers.
The math suggests that the PAPy vote was 61.67% of the total (not sure how the 66.6% came about). Perhaps that is an average of the percentages. Need to look at the math again.
(to be updated)
Of the total number of voters, 2,158,704, only 56.65 people were allowed to actually vote. 935,820 persons were denied their right to vote by the illegal walkovers.
The math suggests that the PAPy vote was 61.67% of the total (not sure how the 66.6% came about). Perhaps that is an average of the percentages. Need to look at the math again.
(to be updated)
The Institute of Policy Studies is holding a Post Election Forum on Friday June 2nd. I will be attending it and am hoping to be able to blog about it in real time assuming that there is connectivity, failing which, I will post a summary.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Just found out that I was referenced to by Nanyang Circle. Unfortunately, I am not able to comment there because of need for an MSN account. Thanks but no thanks, MSN. There are also problems in MSN Spaces in how they render pages on a Firefox/Linux environment I live in.
A new cabinet was sworn in earlier this week. Will these chaps have any new ideas on how to move this country forward? Will the words mouthed by Loong about being inclusive ad nauseum be, once again, fodder for the Straight Times to publish verbatim? Sigh.
A new cabinet was sworn in earlier this week. Will these chaps have any new ideas on how to move this country forward? Will the words mouthed by Loong about being inclusive ad nauseum be, once again, fodder for the Straight Times to publish verbatim? Sigh.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
::: shadow of transcendence:::
Good commentary here. It is actually sad to see the entire leadership of the PAP coming out to say that the 66.6% was a great result. The repeated scrolling on TV of the exact same statement from does bring out the sense of defeat and that repeating "good things" will make it all feel better. Could it be that LHL is being jeered at by his father and GCT and in public putting up a brave face? Good Guy GCT seems to have been coerced into turing this election into a typical Third Worldish vote-buying frency - only to fail badly. In spite of that, I am still willing to forgive GCT as I think he means well. The PAPy on the other hand, needs a lesson in humility and earning praises rather than self-bestowing it.
Good commentary here. It is actually sad to see the entire leadership of the PAP coming out to say that the 66.6% was a great result. The repeated scrolling on TV of the exact same statement from does bring out the sense of defeat and that repeating "good things" will make it all feel better. Could it be that LHL is being jeered at by his father and GCT and in public putting up a brave face? Good Guy GCT seems to have been coerced into turing this election into a typical Third Worldish vote-buying frency - only to fail badly. In spite of that, I am still willing to forgive GCT as I think he means well. The PAPy on the other hand, needs a lesson in humility and earning praises rather than self-bestowing it.
Farcial Election?
Michael Backman writes in The Age about the last election being farcial. It is largely correct. I think it would be useful for him to analyze the electoral process as well. The fact that we continue to have walkovers, means that unless more people come forward during elections, large chunks of the citizeny will never exercise their rights.
Michael Backman writes in The Age about the last election being farcial. It is largely correct. I think it would be useful for him to analyze the electoral process as well. The fact that we continue to have walkovers, means that unless more people come forward during elections, large chunks of the citizeny will never exercise their rights.
Monday, May 08, 2006
This from a friend:
"I'm sad and happy that the election is finally over. Sad that there are only two opposition members in Parliament and happy that the incumbent MPs managed to weather the insults of old age and inexperience to retain their seats with a bigger margin. When the member of the ruling party said that Chiam is old at 71, I am curious how old will he be in the next GE and whether he will step down as a MP. There is already one MP who is older then Chiam and I wonder whether he is there in the Meet-the-People session every week.
I salute the residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang for their determination in keep the opposition members in Parliament for the sake of all Singaporeans despite the juicy upgrading carrots being dangled in front of them. If you go to Potong Pasir and Hougang today, the state of the environment is that of a third world, in a country run by a first world government.
Why is it that the rest of us in Singapore have the benefit of having two opposition members in Parliament while the residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang (the new poor) have to suffer the tumbling in real estate values year after year.
I hope the two opposition MPs will go out and get the upgrading money as promised by the advisers, as these money has been earmarked for upgrading in Potong Pasir and Hougang. If these moneys cannot be disbursed before the next GE, the residents would know that the money is not there in the first place.
66.6% is the devil's number and it spells doom for the state of politics in Singapore i.e. opposition members will be fixed and Singaporeans will be bought for their votes before the next GE. Who knows what will the next progress package be: minimum of $1,000 for each resident, CPF top-ups, free health checks?
Kudos goes to Low Thia Khiang's party for putting up a slate of young candidates to prevent a "walkover" PM. The massacre of the new candidates by 80% or more margin did not materialise and I can detect a sence of arrogance in the post election speech.
I think it's time for Singaporeans whose estates have been upgraded to stand up and be counted by standing solidly behind the people of Potong Pasir and Hougang.
When LHL said in his post election conference to ask all Singaporeans to close ranks and unite for the nation BUT I'm curious whether residents in Potong Pasir and Hougang are Singaporeans in his mindset.
Last thought: Is it safe to talk to our friends who are MPs? Will what we say to them be used against us in the future? I wonder."
My thoughts: in the new parliament, I know of 4 MPs on a personal basis. Notice they are not WOMPs like the bloke who is supposed to represent me. Even though they are PAPy, I respect their choice of company and I hope they will respect mine.
"I'm sad and happy that the election is finally over. Sad that there are only two opposition members in Parliament and happy that the incumbent MPs managed to weather the insults of old age and inexperience to retain their seats with a bigger margin. When the member of the ruling party said that Chiam is old at 71, I am curious how old will he be in the next GE and whether he will step down as a MP. There is already one MP who is older then Chiam and I wonder whether he is there in the Meet-the-People session every week.
I salute the residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang for their determination in keep the opposition members in Parliament for the sake of all Singaporeans despite the juicy upgrading carrots being dangled in front of them. If you go to Potong Pasir and Hougang today, the state of the environment is that of a third world, in a country run by a first world government.
Why is it that the rest of us in Singapore have the benefit of having two opposition members in Parliament while the residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang (the new poor) have to suffer the tumbling in real estate values year after year.
I hope the two opposition MPs will go out and get the upgrading money as promised by the advisers, as these money has been earmarked for upgrading in Potong Pasir and Hougang. If these moneys cannot be disbursed before the next GE, the residents would know that the money is not there in the first place.
66.6% is the devil's number and it spells doom for the state of politics in Singapore i.e. opposition members will be fixed and Singaporeans will be bought for their votes before the next GE. Who knows what will the next progress package be: minimum of $1,000 for each resident, CPF top-ups, free health checks?
Kudos goes to Low Thia Khiang's party for putting up a slate of young candidates to prevent a "walkover" PM. The massacre of the new candidates by 80% or more margin did not materialise and I can detect a sence of arrogance in the post election speech.
I think it's time for Singaporeans whose estates have been upgraded to stand up and be counted by standing solidly behind the people of Potong Pasir and Hougang.
When LHL said in his post election conference to ask all Singaporeans to close ranks and unite for the nation BUT I'm curious whether residents in Potong Pasir and Hougang are Singaporeans in his mindset.
Last thought: Is it safe to talk to our friends who are MPs? Will what we say to them be used against us in the future? I wonder."
My thoughts: in the new parliament, I know of 4 MPs on a personal basis. Notice they are not WOMPs like the bloke who is supposed to represent me. Even though they are PAPy, I respect their choice of company and I hope they will respect mine.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Well done Chiam and Low!
You both have gained on percentages and shown that you have the support of your constituency. That is a seat worth sitting on unlike the blokes who would like to represent my area.
I am sure there will be a PAPy spinning of the results. Given that I was switching from the channelnewsasia.pap.sg to National Geographic and CNBC, there was a very interesting number that appeared. On National Geographic, they were showing an episode from "Secret Bibles" and in that there was a section that talked about the anti-Christ and mentioned stuff like the 666 as being the mark of the devil. Wonder where else the 666 appeared? The average that the PAPy got was 66.6%. I am sure the astute among the PAPy will find a way to change it - and will probably use the overseas voters to make the number look less sinister.
I can help them here. If they were to take the total number of votes in their favour and divide it against all of the voters assuming that there was a minimum of 20% across the board for the "walkover" wards, then it might not look so sinister. But then, who would want to use a silly western liberal idea?
I was channel surfing and it was apparent to me that there is really no interest or care by the mediacorp.gov.sg folks to ensure that the voting coverage is in all four languages. They only did it in 3 with the Tamil station being a copy of the Chinese station. Maybe I am being dense here. Maybe not.
After Jay Leno's slot from 10 - 11 pm, CNBC carried a show called "American Made" in which the current Chairman and CEO of Playboy Enterprises was being interviewed. She is the daughter of the founder of Playboy and what was very interesting is how she was able to hold her ground and defend the business and also emphasize that it is the US constitution's first amendment that makes for the strength of the US and the business they have. Juxtapose that with the suppression we have here. Firstly, no freedom to blog, podcast, run opinion polls, exit polls etc.
It is great that the pork barrel politics done by the PAP at Hougang and Potong Pasir backfired. I am disappointed that Chok Tong, of all people, said all that.
Who will be the NCMP? By the constitution, we need to have 3 opposition MPs at a minimum. We have 2 already and the 3rd has to be filled in by the loser with the most votes. By the looks of it (and the damn elections.gov.sg site is freaking slow - running on Windows I think), it will be the WP team from the Aljunied GRC. So, would it be James Gomez or Sylvia Lim?
You both have gained on percentages and shown that you have the support of your constituency. That is a seat worth sitting on unlike the blokes who would like to represent my area.
I am sure there will be a PAPy spinning of the results. Given that I was switching from the channelnewsasia.pap.sg to National Geographic and CNBC, there was a very interesting number that appeared. On National Geographic, they were showing an episode from "Secret Bibles" and in that there was a section that talked about the anti-Christ and mentioned stuff like the 666 as being the mark of the devil. Wonder where else the 666 appeared? The average that the PAPy got was 66.6%. I am sure the astute among the PAPy will find a way to change it - and will probably use the overseas voters to make the number look less sinister.
I can help them here. If they were to take the total number of votes in their favour and divide it against all of the voters assuming that there was a minimum of 20% across the board for the "walkover" wards, then it might not look so sinister. But then, who would want to use a silly western liberal idea?
I was channel surfing and it was apparent to me that there is really no interest or care by the mediacorp.gov.sg folks to ensure that the voting coverage is in all four languages. They only did it in 3 with the Tamil station being a copy of the Chinese station. Maybe I am being dense here. Maybe not.
After Jay Leno's slot from 10 - 11 pm, CNBC carried a show called "American Made" in which the current Chairman and CEO of Playboy Enterprises was being interviewed. She is the daughter of the founder of Playboy and what was very interesting is how she was able to hold her ground and defend the business and also emphasize that it is the US constitution's first amendment that makes for the strength of the US and the business they have. Juxtapose that with the suppression we have here. Firstly, no freedom to blog, podcast, run opinion polls, exit polls etc.
It is great that the pork barrel politics done by the PAP at Hougang and Potong Pasir backfired. I am disappointed that Chok Tong, of all people, said all that.
Who will be the NCMP? By the constitution, we need to have 3 opposition MPs at a minimum. We have 2 already and the 3rd has to be filled in by the loser with the most votes. By the looks of it (and the damn elections.gov.sg site is freaking slow - running on Windows I think), it will be the WP team from the Aljunied GRC. So, would it be James Gomez or Sylvia Lim?
Friday, May 05, 2006
While we are being screwed!
Perhaps this rings a bell for someone!
> A woman went to a K-Mart service counter and told the
> clerk she wanted a refund for the toaster she bought
> because it won't work. The clerk told her that he can't
> give her a refund because she bought it on special.
>
> Suddenly, the woman threw her arms up in the air and started
> screaming,
>
> "PINCH MY NIPPLES,
> PINCH MY NIPPLES,
> PINCH MY NIPPLES!!!!!!"
>
> The befuddled clerk ran away to get the store manager
> in front of a growing crowd of customers.
>
> The manager comes to the woman and asks,"Ma'am what's wrong?"
> She explained the problem with the toaster, and he also told her that
> he can't give her a refund because she bought it on special.
>
> Once again, the woman throws her arms up in the air and screamed,
>
> "PINCH MY NIPPLES,
> PINCH MY NIPPLES,
> PINCH MY NIPPLES!!!"
> and doing so draws an even bigger crowd!
>
> In shock, the store manager pleads,
> "Ma'am, why are you saying that?"
>
> In a huff, the woman says,
>
> "BECAUSE, I LIKE TO HAVE
> MY NIPPLES PINCHED
> WHEN I'M BEING SCREWED!!"
>
> The crowd broke into applause and her money was quickly
> refunded!!
Perhaps this rings a bell for someone!
> A woman went to a K-Mart service counter and told the
> clerk she wanted a refund for the toaster she bought
> because it won't work. The clerk told her that he can't
> give her a refund because she bought it on special.
>
> Suddenly, the woman threw her arms up in the air and started
> screaming,
>
> "PINCH MY NIPPLES,
> PINCH MY NIPPLES,
> PINCH MY NIPPLES!!!!!!"
>
> The befuddled clerk ran away to get the store manager
> in front of a growing crowd of customers.
>
> The manager comes to the woman and asks,"Ma'am what's wrong?"
> She explained the problem with the toaster, and he also told her that
> he can't give her a refund because she bought it on special.
>
> Once again, the woman throws her arms up in the air and screamed,
>
> "PINCH MY NIPPLES,
> PINCH MY NIPPLES,
> PINCH MY NIPPLES!!!"
> and doing so draws an even bigger crowd!
>
> In shock, the store manager pleads,
> "Ma'am, why are you saying that?"
>
> In a huff, the woman says,
>
> "BECAUSE, I LIKE TO HAVE
> MY NIPPLES PINCHED
> WHEN I'M BEING SCREWED!!"
>
> The crowd broke into applause and her money was quickly
> refunded!!
Ang Mo Kio and East Coast going to the Opposition would be good!
This from a friend:
"The election for the year 2006 will be a watershed event. There were many young candidates armed with university degrees who are willing to serve the people through the opposition parties. These are the candidates to look out for in the future as they earned their wings through the baptism of campaigning in election rallies unlike the candidates of the ruling party who hide under the pants or skirts of ministers in GRCs.
Last night (May 3rd) the WP rally was interesting. They brought up a point to benchmark the ministers pay to the lowest 20% of the poor in Singapore but provide them a multiplier of 100. Currently the average take home of the poor is $800 and giving a multiplier of 100, the ministers' pay would be $80,000. If the poor increase their income to $1,000, then the ministers take home pay would be $100,000. I found this an innovative idea rather than to benchmark against the top earners in 8 professions in Singapore. With this proposal, if the ministers pull the poor up, they stand to benefit with a bigger pay packet.
On the issue of removing GST from hospital bills, the rebuttal was that the rich pays more taxes than the poor, why can't they enjoy the waiver of GST for hospital bills.
Saturday 6 May 2006 is polling day and the results will make or break the opposition in Singapore. If Potong Pasir and Hougang goes to the ruling party, they will be merged into the GRCs nearby to curb/dilute the opposition supporters in these constituencies. It will be a sad day for all Singaporeans and future generations. If the opposition wins a GRC, PAP
will come out with strategies to return to single seat wards as the risk of losing more GRCs in the future is high."
This from a friend:
"The election for the year 2006 will be a watershed event. There were many young candidates armed with university degrees who are willing to serve the people through the opposition parties. These are the candidates to look out for in the future as they earned their wings through the baptism of campaigning in election rallies unlike the candidates of the ruling party who hide under the pants or skirts of ministers in GRCs.
Last night (May 3rd) the WP rally was interesting. They brought up a point to benchmark the ministers pay to the lowest 20% of the poor in Singapore but provide them a multiplier of 100. Currently the average take home of the poor is $800 and giving a multiplier of 100, the ministers' pay would be $80,000. If the poor increase their income to $1,000, then the ministers take home pay would be $100,000. I found this an innovative idea rather than to benchmark against the top earners in 8 professions in Singapore. With this proposal, if the ministers pull the poor up, they stand to benefit with a bigger pay packet.
On the issue of removing GST from hospital bills, the rebuttal was that the rich pays more taxes than the poor, why can't they enjoy the waiver of GST for hospital bills.
Saturday 6 May 2006 is polling day and the results will make or break the opposition in Singapore. If Potong Pasir and Hougang goes to the ruling party, they will be merged into the GRCs nearby to curb/dilute the opposition supporters in these constituencies. It will be a sad day for all Singaporeans and future generations. If the opposition wins a GRC, PAP
will come out with strategies to return to single seat wards as the risk of losing more GRCs in the future is high."
Just Shut Up!
I would like to nominate the Minister for this for this year as well. While I think he is a basically nice chap, it is just that the company he is with is contaminating him.
I would like to nominate the Minister for this for this year as well. While I think he is a basically nice chap, it is just that the company he is with is contaminating him.
Lack of crowd numbers
Isn't interesting that there are no "official media" reports of number of people attending the rallies? If this post on soc.culture.singapore were to be believed, the PAPy rally was cancelled.
How can the average person *know* of these things? If it is not for citizen journalism, we cannot depend on the compliant media to be honest. Yes, there would be the occasional jab, but then?
Isn't interesting that there are no "official media" reports of number of people attending the rallies? If this post on soc.culture.singapore were to be believed, the PAPy rally was cancelled.
How can the average person *know* of these things? If it is not for citizen journalism, we cannot depend on the compliant media to be honest. Yes, there would be the occasional jab, but then?
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Where and who do we trust?
Reading this on can also assume that it applies to Singapore. Too bad they did not include Singapore in their survey.
I do not trust the local print and broadcast media to be fair and complete in their reporting of anything. Trust in them was lost a long time ago and it gets to be even more stark during times when there are elections being held.
Is it healthy for this to continue? Who can you trust? I would be happy to trust the media but they have to earn that trust.
For this coming election, many questions need to be answered that I do not see being asked. Instead we see unproductive mudslinging. The thing here is that since the people who would ask these questions are potentially from the non-PAP crowd, whether these get reported by the media is debatable. There are no more Tan Cheng Boks left in the line up from the PAP - or at least, none yet. We need more citizen journalists to report on what is being discussed and debated and to get that info to the voting population - not lobotomized reporting as is seen by the media.
Reading this on can also assume that it applies to Singapore. Too bad they did not include Singapore in their survey.
I do not trust the local print and broadcast media to be fair and complete in their reporting of anything. Trust in them was lost a long time ago and it gets to be even more stark during times when there are elections being held.
Is it healthy for this to continue? Who can you trust? I would be happy to trust the media but they have to earn that trust.
For this coming election, many questions need to be answered that I do not see being asked. Instead we see unproductive mudslinging. The thing here is that since the people who would ask these questions are potentially from the non-PAP crowd, whether these get reported by the media is debatable. There are no more Tan Cheng Boks left in the line up from the PAP - or at least, none yet. We need more citizen journalists to report on what is being discussed and debated and to get that info to the voting population - not lobotomized reporting as is seen by the media.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
How do I register?
I searched the MDA site to see how would a person register to be able to post political comments/blogs/podcasts. It is May 3rd and there is still no information.
I searched the MDA site to see how would a person register to be able to post political comments/blogs/podcasts. It is May 3rd and there is still no information.
Should I update this page?
I got a couple of emails and SMSes from friends asking why I am not updating this site. Indeed, why am I not?
Well, for one, I am out of town. So, I do not get the hardnosed sanitized BS from the media. Thankfully. I cannot also exercise my right to vote. The area I live in has been given on a silver platter to the incumbent. How would then I be able to show any care for this entire sham?
Just visited thestraitstimes.gov.sg site and instead of talking about issues of concern - like high salaries for ministers, non-transparency of government investments via Temasek etc. Instead, what do we see, ... never mind.
The government has successfully suppressed the use of alternate media like blogs and podcasts to deny CITIZENS - not politicians nor political parties - the ability to participate in this election.
I got a couple of emails and SMSes from friends asking why I am not updating this site. Indeed, why am I not?
Well, for one, I am out of town. So, I do not get the hardnosed sanitized BS from the media. Thankfully. I cannot also exercise my right to vote. The area I live in has been given on a silver platter to the incumbent. How would then I be able to show any care for this entire sham?
Just visited the
The government has successfully suppressed the use of alternate media like blogs and podcasts to deny CITIZENS - not politicians nor political parties - the ability to participate in this election.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
The show begins
I am really glad that under the current illegal "walkover" scheme, we do have the PAP WOMPs holding less than 50% of the seats. I was tickled to see the facial reaction of PAP secretary general when he had to earn his seat in parliament. Having been elected into parliament only twice in 1984 and 1988 (with a statistically insignificant lower percentage and real vote), LHL has to earn his right to be an MP and a PM.
Unfortunately, I cannot cast my vote where I live. Some PAP WOMP is going to claim to represent me. Dude, you were never voted in. Live with that reality. If you want a mandate, work within your party and do the right thing.
I am really glad that under the current illegal "walkover" scheme, we do have the PAP WOMPs holding less than 50% of the seats. I was tickled to see the facial reaction of PAP secretary general when he had to earn his seat in parliament. Having been elected into parliament only twice in 1984 and 1988 (with a statistically insignificant lower percentage and real vote), LHL has to earn his right to be an MP and a PM.
1984:
Teck Ghee (16,866)
Giam Lai Cheng UPF 3,123 19.62
Lee Hsien Loong PAP 12,794 80.38
1988:
Teck Ghee (15,510)
Lee Hsien Loong PAP 11,512 79.13
Patrick Leong S C INDP 3,037 20.87
1991:
Ang Mo Kio (74,004)
Lau Ping Sum PAP walkover
Lee Hsien Loong
Umar Abdul Hamid
Yeo Toon Chia
1997:
Ang Mo Kio (125,344)
Lee Hsien Loong PAP walkover
Seng Han Thong
Inderjit Singh
Tan Boon Wan
Tang Guan Seng
2001:
Ang Mo Kio (166,644)
Inderjit Singh PAP walkover
Lee Hsien Loong
Sadasivan Balaji
Seng Han Thong
Tan Boon Wan
Wee Siew Kim
Unfortunately, I cannot cast my vote where I live. Some PAP WOMP is going to claim to represent me. Dude, you were never voted in. Live with that reality. If you want a mandate, work within your party and do the right thing.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Exercise your right to vote!
Later today, we will know who stands where. The sad reality of this statement is that there will be significant number of my fellow citizens whose right to vote will be nullified. All because of this nonsense called a walkover.
I caught some of the reporting on the local TV about them "bringing minute-by-minute reports" from the nomination centers. Yeah, riggghht. Blow-by-blow reporting to keep the audience at the edge of their seats. Singapore politics is full of excitement! Riggghhht.
Later today, we will know who stands where. The sad reality of this statement is that there will be significant number of my fellow citizens whose right to vote will be nullified. All because of this nonsense called a walkover.
I caught some of the reporting on the local TV about them "bringing minute-by-minute reports" from the nomination centers. Yeah, riggghht. Blow-by-blow reporting to keep the audience at the edge of their seats. Singapore politics is full of excitement! Riggghhht.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
At least I live in Singapore!
I was in China last week. The way the Chinese government abuses human rights came starkly home to me - a foreigner. I was in the hotel room and was on line doing work. I had the TV on and was switched to CNN which was showing, live, the visit of the Chinese president to the US. The Chinese president Hu had just arrived at the White House and was being given the official welcome. Bush doing his welcome spiel and once done, Hu took the dais. Just as he started, a heckler started shouting about the Falungong and related abuses by the Chinese government. Immediately, CNN went BLANK. BLANK. No audio, no video, no inteference, no hiss, nothing. Silence. I was puzzled. I thought that the TV was toasted. Without missing a heartbeat, I switched to the next channel, CNBC, and viola, they were showing two angles - one on Hu and the other on a lady being manhandled by security. Switched back to CNN. Still BLANK. Switched back to CNBC. The scenes continue. Switched to BBC - still on and showing the video of the heckler being taken away. Back to CNN. Still blank. Then it comes back on showing Hu doing his spiel. Each time CNN switches to the heckler, it goes blank. Wow! How long does the Chinese government think they can continue to fool their people? I hope not for much longer.
Would the TV go blank when someone heckles the ruling elite here? I don't think so. Would the heckler be charged? I am not sure but IANAL.
So here I was subject to the blatant censorship by the Chinese thought police via blanks on CNN and not being able to reach my blog here. For those under the Chinese thought police regime, my condolences. At least I live in Singapore - a smidgen freer.
I was in China last week. The way the Chinese government abuses human rights came starkly home to me - a foreigner. I was in the hotel room and was on line doing work. I had the TV on and was switched to CNN which was showing, live, the visit of the Chinese president to the US. The Chinese president Hu had just arrived at the White House and was being given the official welcome. Bush doing his welcome spiel and once done, Hu took the dais. Just as he started, a heckler started shouting about the Falungong and related abuses by the Chinese government. Immediately, CNN went BLANK. BLANK. No audio, no video, no inteference, no hiss, nothing. Silence. I was puzzled. I thought that the TV was toasted. Without missing a heartbeat, I switched to the next channel, CNBC, and viola, they were showing two angles - one on Hu and the other on a lady being manhandled by security. Switched back to CNN. Still BLANK. Switched back to CNBC. The scenes continue. Switched to BBC - still on and showing the video of the heckler being taken away. Back to CNN. Still blank. Then it comes back on showing Hu doing his spiel. Each time CNN switches to the heckler, it goes blank. Wow! How long does the Chinese government think they can continue to fool their people? I hope not for much longer.
Would the TV go blank when someone heckles the ruling elite here? I don't think so. Would the heckler be charged? I am not sure but IANAL.
So here I was subject to the blatant censorship by the Chinese thought police via blanks on CNN and not being able to reach my blog here. For those under the Chinese thought police regime, my condolences. At least I live in Singapore - a smidgen freer.
What, moi to be quoted?
I got a call from the print media about the fact the blogs and podcasts are disallowed during the election period and seeking my comments about that.
I have no issue being quoted and while I think the local print media has chosen to not play any useful role to raise the political consciousness,but because they are the only way *some* information and views can get out, I reluctantly agreed.
Singapore is my country. It is wonderful that this country of mine has achieved a tremendous amount of growth and development from a physical point of view and from a certain extent, the social. But what has failed, is the collective sense of ownership of the political sphere.
It is good that the political parties have been doing their self-renewal fairly regularly, but for the sake of the country and it's future, self renewal is insufficient. Stepping back after a while of doing good and letting others take over and running it is more important. What purpose would the MM Lee serve as a WOMP that he cannot do as a external private consultant to the government? Step back and see how the nation moves on. Would it be fair to this country to have to figure out how to manage *after* he dies? I am sure that MM Lee loves this country just as much as I do. So, show that you are willing to stand down for the sake of the country. We will survive and thrive. Really. And inspite of the PAP.
Earlier this evening I was chatting with a friend of mine who is American and PR here, married to a Singaporean and with children who are Singaporeans as well. As a foreigner, he himself feels that the fear element is so pervasive that it is stifling. He was also saying that should the PAP not be in power, he would not want to be in Singapore. He has a choice. He can always bring his family to the US. Would I have that option? The fact we do not yet know how a non PAP team will govern this country means that we can only conjecture. Could we have been missing out on a real nirvana on Earth with a non PAP team? How will we know? The only reality that the bulk of the population knows is that PAP way of doing things. Thankfully, their way of doing things has worked out well for us - OK, 80% of the time. What happened to the remaining 20%? I don't know. I do not see transparency and accountability made available sufficiently.
Consider how this 2006 "election" will be run. After nomination day, possibly a wide swath of my fellow citizens will not be able to exercise their constitutional and UN-guaranteed right to elect their representatives. The WOMPs will then go around for their "thank you" drive arounds. Don't they have any shame? They were never voted in!
OK, so the nomination day passes. Now starts the classic uneven playing field of their so called "party political broadcasts" whose duration is calculated based on the number of candidates the parties field. Guess who gets the lion share? How does this sham help? How would people decide on a contrived formula of air time? The parties cannot blog nor podcast. "Nooooo, this is not a way to do things in Singapore. We are serious about politics. Get registered and be accountable." So, while Singapore aims to be a wireless and e-lifestyle hub, the political dinosaurs would rather that they lived in a world that contains only printed, audio and video broadcast systems that are in their control. "Ideas are dangerous", said a PAP WOMP/MP once.
You cannot have a First World electorate so long as you treat them as diaper-wearing cry-babies. No point trying to say that "oh, we are First World Political Party". You have to earn it. As it stands, while the shirts, pants and skirts and tudongs might be whiter than white, the individuals wearing it have to earn and be bestowed that label. Self labeling is pretentious.
As a final comment for now, no, I am not a western-liberal-ideas person. I love my country too much to let it continue to be cajoled by juraisic mindsets and "I have the experience, so shut up and listen" attitudes.
Majulah Singapura!
I got a call from the print media about the fact the blogs and podcasts are disallowed during the election period and seeking my comments about that.
I have no issue being quoted and while I think the local print media has chosen to not play any useful role to raise the political consciousness,but because they are the only way *some* information and views can get out, I reluctantly agreed.
Singapore is my country. It is wonderful that this country of mine has achieved a tremendous amount of growth and development from a physical point of view and from a certain extent, the social. But what has failed, is the collective sense of ownership of the political sphere.
It is good that the political parties have been doing their self-renewal fairly regularly, but for the sake of the country and it's future, self renewal is insufficient. Stepping back after a while of doing good and letting others take over and running it is more important. What purpose would the MM Lee serve as a WOMP that he cannot do as a external private consultant to the government? Step back and see how the nation moves on. Would it be fair to this country to have to figure out how to manage *after* he dies? I am sure that MM Lee loves this country just as much as I do. So, show that you are willing to stand down for the sake of the country. We will survive and thrive. Really. And inspite of the PAP.
Earlier this evening I was chatting with a friend of mine who is American and PR here, married to a Singaporean and with children who are Singaporeans as well. As a foreigner, he himself feels that the fear element is so pervasive that it is stifling. He was also saying that should the PAP not be in power, he would not want to be in Singapore. He has a choice. He can always bring his family to the US. Would I have that option? The fact we do not yet know how a non PAP team will govern this country means that we can only conjecture. Could we have been missing out on a real nirvana on Earth with a non PAP team? How will we know? The only reality that the bulk of the population knows is that PAP way of doing things. Thankfully, their way of doing things has worked out well for us - OK, 80% of the time. What happened to the remaining 20%? I don't know. I do not see transparency and accountability made available sufficiently.
Consider how this 2006 "election" will be run. After nomination day, possibly a wide swath of my fellow citizens will not be able to exercise their constitutional and UN-guaranteed right to elect their representatives. The WOMPs will then go around for their "thank you" drive arounds. Don't they have any shame? They were never voted in!
OK, so the nomination day passes. Now starts the classic uneven playing field of their so called "party political broadcasts" whose duration is calculated based on the number of candidates the parties field. Guess who gets the lion share? How does this sham help? How would people decide on a contrived formula of air time? The parties cannot blog nor podcast. "Nooooo, this is not a way to do things in Singapore. We are serious about politics. Get registered and be accountable." So, while Singapore aims to be a wireless and e-lifestyle hub, the political dinosaurs would rather that they lived in a world that contains only printed, audio and video broadcast systems that are in their control. "Ideas are dangerous", said a PAP WOMP/MP once.
You cannot have a First World electorate so long as you treat them as diaper-wearing cry-babies. No point trying to say that "oh, we are First World Political Party". You have to earn it. As it stands, while the shirts, pants and skirts and tudongs might be whiter than white, the individuals wearing it have to earn and be bestowed that label. Self labeling is pretentious.
As a final comment for now, no, I am not a western-liberal-ideas person. I love my country too much to let it continue to be cajoled by juraisic mindsets and "I have the experience, so shut up and listen" attitudes.
Majulah Singapura!
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Where is the debate on issues?
The Singapore blogosphere is really the only place where any form of valid and considered debates can happen in this country.
The mainstream media - print and broadcast - has, for a long time now, renounced it's potential role as a trusted opinion leader and has continued to rehash and be the voice of the ruling elite. Not that the ruling elite cannot have this channel. What we are sorely missing the the rest of the cacophony of the conversations we should be having.
The blogosphere is really the best way to get people to start discussing and be the way the "ruling elite" to engage with the population instead of hiding away and "banning" blogs during this crucial period of this country's future.
The Singapore blogosphere is really the only place where any form of valid and considered debates can happen in this country.
The mainstream media - print and broadcast - has, for a long time now, renounced it's potential role as a trusted opinion leader and has continued to rehash and be the voice of the ruling elite. Not that the ruling elite cannot have this channel. What we are sorely missing the the rest of the cacophony of the conversations we should be having.
The blogosphere is really the best way to get people to start discussing and be the way the "ruling elite" to engage with the population instead of hiding away and "banning" blogs during this crucial period of this country's future.
It's gonna be the same
Looks like we are back to the same set of suits and countersuits that is the hallmark of the Singapore political scene.
In a way, I look forward to abdicating my right to vote by the fiasco of walkovers so that I can just ignore what is happening and just sit back and enjoy life with my family.
Sad.
Looks like we are back to the same set of suits and countersuits that is the hallmark of the Singapore political scene.
In a way, I look forward to abdicating my right to vote by the fiasco of walkovers so that I can just ignore what is happening and just sit back and enjoy life with my family.
Sad.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Great Firewall of China
See my post at my other blog at livejournal.com. I cannot reach this site from China. I can post (using drivel) though? What gives?
I can access this site via anonymouse.org though.
See my post at my other blog at livejournal.com. I cannot reach this site from China. I can post (using drivel) though? What gives?
I can access this site via anonymouse.org though.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Help me understand what makes a mandate!
From this, if you do the math, here is what happened in 2001:
a) Total number of persons eligible to vote: 2,036,923
b) Number that could vote because of the "walkovers": 615,267, ie, 30.21% of voters
c) Of the 615,267, the number that voted in favour of the PAP: 453,527.
d) That number, 453,527 comprises 22.27% of the TOTAL number of voters. BUT, the ruling party would instead like to say that they got 73.7% of votes in their favour - 453,527/615,267, those who voted in favour of the PAP divided by those who could, NOT what it should be - 453,527/2,036,923 which is those who voted in favour of PAP divided by total number of voters. Spin doctors lying with statistics - naturally, our compliant daily rags did not do the analysis as well.
So, with a 22.27% of votes in favour of the PAP, the PAP has a mandate to govern? MM Lee, the wise one with the databank, will say that "it is a reflection of how bad the opposition is". How did we let this happen?
22.27% gives 97.6% or 82 seats in parliament! Can this be allowed to continue? We need to be able to VOTE in the MPs, not to get in on stupid technicalities. Walkovers are unconstitutional.
Look at it another way:
a) Of the 84 seats, only 29 are elected MPs, 27 of them being PAPies or, in percentage terms, 32% of the 84 MPs are elected PAPy MPs. All 29 of them have a moral and legal right to represent their constituents.
b) A whopping 55 or 65.4% (almost 2/3s) are WOMPs and have no moral right to represent anyone. Legal right to represent is bestowed by a flawed walkover system.
From this, if you do the math, here is what happened in 2001:
a) Total number of persons eligible to vote: 2,036,923
b) Number that could vote because of the "walkovers": 615,267, ie, 30.21% of voters
c) Of the 615,267, the number that voted in favour of the PAP: 453,527.
d) That number, 453,527 comprises 22.27% of the TOTAL number of voters. BUT, the ruling party would instead like to say that they got 73.7% of votes in their favour - 453,527/615,267, those who voted in favour of the PAP divided by those who could, NOT what it should be - 453,527/2,036,923 which is those who voted in favour of PAP divided by total number of voters. Spin doctors lying with statistics - naturally, our compliant daily rags did not do the analysis as well.
So, with a 22.27% of votes in favour of the PAP, the PAP has a mandate to govern? MM Lee, the wise one with the databank, will say that "it is a reflection of how bad the opposition is". How did we let this happen?
22.27% gives 97.6% or 82 seats in parliament! Can this be allowed to continue? We need to be able to VOTE in the MPs, not to get in on stupid technicalities. Walkovers are unconstitutional.
Look at it another way:
a) Of the 84 seats, only 29 are elected MPs, 27 of them being PAPies or, in percentage terms, 32% of the 84 MPs are elected PAPy MPs. All 29 of them have a moral and legal right to represent their constituents.
b) A whopping 55 or 65.4% (almost 2/3s) are WOMPs and have no moral right to represent anyone. Legal right to represent is bestowed by a flawed walkover system.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
How does this work?
a) Voting in any election is compulsory. Riiggghhhtt.
b) If you don't vote, your name is struck off the electoral rolls and you cannot then run in the next election (I think). You need to pay S$5 to reinstate your name. Need to give a "valid and sufficient reason" to want to be on the roll. I wonder why? Has anyone been denied before? If not, why bother?
c) If there is no one contesting the candidate, she gets into parliament without a single vote in her favour; you are deemed to have voted anyway. Hmm.
d) This WOMP (walk over member of parliament) gets a seat in parliament and is then subjected to the Party Whip - ie, there can be as much debate as you please in parliament but when it comes to voting in parliament, the PW dictates how the WOMPs and MPs vote.
Nice. It all works well. Life is nice.
So, it is a sorta democracy at the ballot box (assuming you can), and then it is dictatorial regime in parliament. Interesting. Use "democracy" to get in, and then use the whip to line things up.
Am I missing something here? Did my fellow citizens get shafted with slick propaganda all these years? I think so.
a) Voting in any election is compulsory. Riiggghhhtt.
b) If you don't vote, your name is struck off the electoral rolls and you cannot then run in the next election (I think). You need to pay S$5 to reinstate your name. Need to give a "valid and sufficient reason" to want to be on the roll. I wonder why? Has anyone been denied before? If not, why bother?
c) If there is no one contesting the candidate, she gets into parliament without a single vote in her favour; you are deemed to have voted anyway. Hmm.
d) This WOMP (walk over member of parliament) gets a seat in parliament and is then subjected to the Party Whip - ie, there can be as much debate as you please in parliament but when it comes to voting in parliament, the PW dictates how the WOMPs and MPs vote.
Nice. It all works well. Life is nice.
So, it is a sorta democracy at the ballot box (assuming you can), and then it is dictatorial regime in parliament. Interesting. Use "democracy" to get in, and then use the whip to line things up.
Am I missing something here? Did my fellow citizens get shafted with slick propaganda all these years? I think so.
So, your vote is secret.
Well, that is indeed true. I have no desire to keep my vote a secret. There is no reason to other than to feed the "climate of fear". For the record, in elections that I could vote, I voted for the competition. Why? Because every vote counts and I think it is unhealthy, distasteful and unwise for there to be no one from another political persuasion in parliament. Also, it would be nice to say "I never voted for you!" Mr PAP MP.
Well, that is indeed true. I have no desire to keep my vote a secret. There is no reason to other than to feed the "climate of fear". For the record, in elections that I could vote, I voted for the competition. Why? Because every vote counts and I think it is unhealthy, distasteful and unwise for there to be no one from another political persuasion in parliament. Also, it would be nice to say "I never voted for you!" Mr PAP MP.
So, the stage is set. We will have another round of what cannot be anything but a sham.
In a show on TV, MM Lee tried to engage with a group of Singaporeans who are what is being called the post independence generation. It was an interesting dialog with some highlights and some lowlights. What I got out of it was the MM Lee still clings on to some archaic ways of thinking tempered by his "databank".
He was challenged about podcasts, blogs etc. His answer to disallow them for the elections was because "we cannot engage in a robust dialog". It is hard to believe that the PAP really *thinks* that they cannot engage in a dialog via blogs and podcasts. It is a pink elephant. They know that they cannot get into a robust dialog because they cannot package their answers. They need spin doctors to spin their replies (and helped by the compliant media) which cannot be done on the net. So, let's just take the easy way out and ban it. There, done.
To a question if only 20% of people voted, would that be deemed to be a mandate, all he could do was to deflect it to say that it is a reflection of failure of the opponents. Who's pulling whose leg here, Mr Lee? The government that has been in office, at least since 2001, did not have the honest mandate of the people. The bulk of the people got in via walkovers which is an abuse of the constitutional right of a citizen's right to vote. Walkovers are a scar on the intellect and a fatal blow to the body politic. It takes away the raison d'taire for having a constitution and an elections process.
Overall the show as a sad display of a man and a party that has lost it. The party he founded is short of ideas and boldness (not that the other parties have anyihing better). All said, Mr Lee, it would be wiser for you to step aside and retire like a gentleman. You have served well and we will applaud you and your place in history is well deserved. Thanks for the memories. We can erect a statue for you in front of the Marina casino - seriously!
In a show on TV, MM Lee tried to engage with a group of Singaporeans who are what is being called the post independence generation. It was an interesting dialog with some highlights and some lowlights. What I got out of it was the MM Lee still clings on to some archaic ways of thinking tempered by his "databank".
He was challenged about podcasts, blogs etc. His answer to disallow them for the elections was because "we cannot engage in a robust dialog". It is hard to believe that the PAP really *thinks* that they cannot engage in a dialog via blogs and podcasts. It is a pink elephant. They know that they cannot get into a robust dialog because they cannot package their answers. They need spin doctors to spin their replies (and helped by the compliant media) which cannot be done on the net. So, let's just take the easy way out and ban it. There, done.
To a question if only 20% of people voted, would that be deemed to be a mandate, all he could do was to deflect it to say that it is a reflection of failure of the opponents. Who's pulling whose leg here, Mr Lee? The government that has been in office, at least since 2001, did not have the honest mandate of the people. The bulk of the people got in via walkovers which is an abuse of the constitutional right of a citizen's right to vote. Walkovers are a scar on the intellect and a fatal blow to the body politic. It takes away the raison d'taire for having a constitution and an elections process.
Overall the show as a sad display of a man and a party that has lost it. The party he founded is short of ideas and boldness (not that the other parties have anyihing better). All said, Mr Lee, it would be wiser for you to step aside and retire like a gentleman. You have served well and we will applaud you and your place in history is well deserved. Thanks for the memories. We can erect a statue for you in front of the Marina casino - seriously!
Monday, March 06, 2006
Electoral boundaries and walkovers
On Friday March 3rd 2006, the Electoral Boundaries Committee released it's recommendations to redraw the boundaries of the constituencies. While the changes have not be massive, it still begs the question of the independence of this committee. What we need is an independent Elections Commission that is answerable to the people not one that reports to the PMO.
In any case, no matter what is done to gerrymander the boundaries, what is more important is that we all get to vote and that we outlaw "walkovers".
The PAP has been childishly making "come, challenge me" types of comments and it is a reflection of a sorry state of affairs. Those who aspire to have a seat in parliament should be getting one because the people whom they are promising to represent genuinely voted for them and not because of a technicality of a "walkover". In today's world, it is an aberration of truth and legitimacy to continue to keep these arcane and illegal ways to represent the people.
On Friday March 3rd 2006, the Electoral Boundaries Committee released it's recommendations to redraw the boundaries of the constituencies. While the changes have not be massive, it still begs the question of the independence of this committee. What we need is an independent Elections Commission that is answerable to the people not one that reports to the PMO.
In any case, no matter what is done to gerrymander the boundaries, what is more important is that we all get to vote and that we outlaw "walkovers".
The PAP has been childishly making "come, challenge me" types of comments and it is a reflection of a sorry state of affairs. Those who aspire to have a seat in parliament should be getting one because the people whom they are promising to represent genuinely voted for them and not because of a technicality of a "walkover". In today's world, it is an aberration of truth and legitimacy to continue to keep these arcane and illegal ways to represent the people.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Please consider signing the petition.
I have posted the following to soc.culture.singapore - http://tinyurl.com/94s9y. The petition itself is at http://www.petitiononline.com/temasek/
I have posted the following to soc.culture.singapore - http://tinyurl.com/94s9y. The petition itself is at http://www.petitiononline.com/temasek/
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Elections!
The ruling regime has till about mid-2007 to call for general elections. But the sad thing about the whole affair is that we have a system that continues to honour "walkovers". Walkovers, should be, IMHO, made illegal and inapplicable in the case of elections. What we have seen in previous so-called General Elections, is that on nomination day, the ruling regime has essentially been handed the keys to the next government. All because there was no one to contest.
Together with the now defunct, The Roundtable, I have stated in 2001 and repeated in my NMP application, that every electoral contest must have a minimum number of votes in favour of the winning candidate. So, if there is only 1 contestant, that contestant must garner, say 30%, of the valid votes in favour before she gets the seat in parliament. The bulk of the people sitting in parliament today do not have a single mandate to sit there. They were never voted in. Just as President S R Nathan, they do not have the moral or ethical stand to represent Singapore. They got in on technicality. Shame on you.
The argument has been made that no ruling party will want to make it easier for another party to take over power from them. While that might sound logical, what I am asking for here is a fair playing ground. A ground on which, I as a citizen am able to exercise my fundamental human right to vote. I am sure this nonsense of walkovers is a contravention of the United Nations Convention on Human Rights.
Please join me in signing the petition. We have to fix it NOW!
The ruling regime has till about mid-2007 to call for general elections. But the sad thing about the whole affair is that we have a system that continues to honour "walkovers". Walkovers, should be, IMHO, made illegal and inapplicable in the case of elections. What we have seen in previous so-called General Elections, is that on nomination day, the ruling regime has essentially been handed the keys to the next government. All because there was no one to contest.
Together with the now defunct, The Roundtable, I have stated in 2001 and repeated in my NMP application, that every electoral contest must have a minimum number of votes in favour of the winning candidate. So, if there is only 1 contestant, that contestant must garner, say 30%, of the valid votes in favour before she gets the seat in parliament. The bulk of the people sitting in parliament today do not have a single mandate to sit there. They were never voted in. Just as President S R Nathan, they do not have the moral or ethical stand to represent Singapore. They got in on technicality. Shame on you.
The argument has been made that no ruling party will want to make it easier for another party to take over power from them. While that might sound logical, what I am asking for here is a fair playing ground. A ground on which, I as a citizen am able to exercise my fundamental human right to vote. I am sure this nonsense of walkovers is a contravention of the United Nations Convention on Human Rights.
Please join me in signing the petition. We have to fix it NOW!
Did not quite realize that it has been over two months since I posted. I suppose it is both a good and a bad thing - good in that I was busy, and bad in that poor time-management resulted in this lapse.
It is 2006 now and, personally, and from a family point of view, 2005 was amazing. Firstly, I was on the ground in Banda Aceh as a deputy commander of the SCDF Ops Lion Heart contingent on since December 29 2004 and the way I could usher in 2005 on the 31st was via SMSes to my wife and sons. Did I ever expect to be deployed for a real operation? And when the call came in, I did not hesitate. I will gladly be out there helping when the calls ever comes in again.
When I watched the movie The Towering Inferno in 1974 (amazing that it was over 30 years ago), there was a scene where a man working as a checkout clerk, leaves his job and rushes to put on a fireman's suit. He was a reservist firefighter and the fact that he responded to an emergency and, that he did it willingly, kinda stuck in my mind. That was the mental image in my mind when I got that recall from the SCDF at about 11am on December 29 2004!
I am proud to be associated with an organization such as the SCDF. They are trained for real life - not make believe. Saving lives is their primary motive. I think we need to get that "a-ha" factor into the SCDF reservists (or the politically correct "operationally ready national servicemen"). I say this because we need to have reservists inspire fellow reservists. I tried to do that during my last ICT in April 2005, where I took over one lesson period to share with my men what the SCDF did on the ground. I hope that the sharing did inspire some or all of them to do better and take their ICT stints more seriously but more importantly, raise their respect for the Force.
I have now been transferred to the holding list, meaning that it is unlikely that I will be called up for any more ICTs or operations. That is fine. It is time for younger officers to take over.
2005 was also exciting from another angle - I got inducted into the OSU College of Engineering Council of Outstanding Early Career Enginners. What an honour!
As a final item of reflection, I am glad to have passed the Red Hat Certified Engineer exams on December 31 2005. I was not planning on doing any of these industry/vendor certifications, but I chose this one over others - not because I work for Red Hat, but I wanted to be a sorta inspiration to my sons!
It is 2006 now and, personally, and from a family point of view, 2005 was amazing. Firstly, I was on the ground in Banda Aceh as a deputy commander of the SCDF Ops Lion Heart contingent on since December 29 2004 and the way I could usher in 2005 on the 31st was via SMSes to my wife and sons. Did I ever expect to be deployed for a real operation? And when the call came in, I did not hesitate. I will gladly be out there helping when the calls ever comes in again.
When I watched the movie The Towering Inferno in 1974 (amazing that it was over 30 years ago), there was a scene where a man working as a checkout clerk, leaves his job and rushes to put on a fireman's suit. He was a reservist firefighter and the fact that he responded to an emergency and, that he did it willingly, kinda stuck in my mind. That was the mental image in my mind when I got that recall from the SCDF at about 11am on December 29 2004!
I am proud to be associated with an organization such as the SCDF. They are trained for real life - not make believe. Saving lives is their primary motive. I think we need to get that "a-ha" factor into the SCDF reservists (or the politically correct "operationally ready national servicemen"). I say this because we need to have reservists inspire fellow reservists. I tried to do that during my last ICT in April 2005, where I took over one lesson period to share with my men what the SCDF did on the ground. I hope that the sharing did inspire some or all of them to do better and take their ICT stints more seriously but more importantly, raise their respect for the Force.
I have now been transferred to the holding list, meaning that it is unlikely that I will be called up for any more ICTs or operations. That is fine. It is time for younger officers to take over.
2005 was also exciting from another angle - I got inducted into the OSU College of Engineering Council of Outstanding Early Career Enginners. What an honour!
As a final item of reflection, I am glad to have passed the Red Hat Certified Engineer exams on December 31 2005. I was not planning on doing any of these industry/vendor certifications, but I chose this one over others - not because I work for Red Hat, but I wanted to be a sorta inspiration to my sons!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)