Elections on May 6th
Let's see if this election will again be claimed to have been won by the current ruling party with a vote of less than 23%. Actually, if you do the math, the 1968 election was the worst.
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!
Sunday, November 06, 2005
The locals have spoken! The daily wastepaper did run the story and the government apparently could not be bothered with the fact that Singapore is ranked 140 in the press freedom stakes. My favourite PM, Goh Chok Tong, says that it is not important because the list has some other countries higher up on the scale who do not make it at all in the economic game.
Well, Chok Tong, it is sad that you have been given the task to tackle this instead of the man who brought it upon us. I am sure deep in you, you feel sad. This country of ours is being laughed at. Isn't it interesting that Loong does not seem to care?
The local press continues to have no credibility and trust (did it ever?). I am sure my friends in the press who earn a honest wage will be sad to see this - but, alas, what else can I say? My friends will not say it like it is for they know that their editors and their upper rung will not allow for honest writing and reporting. My friends are being dragged into this whirlpool of distrust and shadowplay and all they want to do is to see their children grow and live a good life. Choices!
Well, Chok Tong, it is sad that you have been given the task to tackle this instead of the man who brought it upon us. I am sure deep in you, you feel sad. This country of ours is being laughed at. Isn't it interesting that Loong does not seem to care?
The local press continues to have no credibility and trust (did it ever?). I am sure my friends in the press who earn a honest wage will be sad to see this - but, alas, what else can I say? My friends will not say it like it is for they know that their editors and their upper rung will not allow for honest writing and reporting. My friends are being dragged into this whirlpool of distrust and shadowplay and all they want to do is to see their children grow and live a good life. Choices!
Thursday, October 27, 2005
How naive? Here's an email I got from the a local newspaper's online site on September 29 2005:
Suffice to say that I choose not to pay the 16 cents a day for access to what is essentially a self-censored government mouthpiece.
It is amazing that they have an infrastructure to support thousands of online users, only to see that after their new money-making scam, less than 500 people have taken the bait. They claim to be 160 years old this year - the dead tree edition, btw - but what have they to show for
the 160 years? Nothing.
The Straits Times is nothing more than a small town newspaper. It is not the New York Times, or the Times of India, or the Wall Street Journal.
My country is suffering a serious deficiency in robust and healthy debate of issues because the media has failed the country.
Dear STI Reader,
We hope you have enjoyed reading The Straits Times Interactive (STI),
the online version of The Straits Times - the nation's flagship newspaper
with a readership of 1.35 million daily.
STI went into a subscription model in March this year and many have
signed up as a subscriber for their daily feed of local & international
news.
For the rest that have yet to do so, we understand that most of you are
still visiting the STI home page daily to read the news headlines.
To encourage you to become a subscriber so that you can read beyond
the home page to enjoy the full stories behind the headlines, we are
pleased to offer you this special promotion exclusively for our STI
registered members that have yet to take on our online subscription:
STI Registered Members Subscription Promotion
Sign up our 12-month subscription at S$120, for as little as S$10 a
month! This would work out to an unbelievable rate of 32 cents a day.
If you are currently also our print The Straits Times subscriber, you
will enjoy a 50% discount and only need to pay S$60 for a year's
subscription.
*Sign up and you will receive an exclusive gift from us, two additional
months of subscription!
Moreover, you will also stand a chance to be one of the lucky winners
of a ThinkPad notebook in our monthly lucky draw.
Make STI your one-stop news station. Click here to subscribe online
today to enjoy your daily news read. Promotion starts on Sept 29 and
ends on October 15, 2005. Act now!
After making online payment, your account will automatically be
updated with two extra months of subscription.
For further clarification, please write to Miss NAME DELETED at
NAMEDELETED@sph.com.sg. Once again, we thank you for
reading STI.
Regards,
==NAME DELETED==
Business Manager
Internet Business Unit
Marketing Division
Singapore Press Holdings Limited
Co. Regn. No. 198402868E
Web Site Address: www.straitstimes.com
Suffice to say that I choose not to pay the 16 cents a day for access to what is essentially a self-censored government mouthpiece.
It is amazing that they have an infrastructure to support thousands of online users, only to see that after their new money-making scam, less than 500 people have taken the bait. They claim to be 160 years old this year - the dead tree edition, btw - but what have they to show for
the 160 years? Nothing.
The Straits Times is nothing more than a small town newspaper. It is not the New York Times, or the Times of India, or the Wall Street Journal.
My country is suffering a serious deficiency in robust and healthy debate of issues because the media has failed the country.
Reportes sans frontieres report about the ranking of press freedom in the world for 2005. Nice to see that Singapore make the list at about 140 our of 167. Let's see if it ever gets reported in the local press.
Am back. I have decided to keep this blog for how I view the state of my country. I will have my technology related stuff at LiveJournal.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Open XML from MS?
Reminds me of the debate I had with Peter Moore of MS Singapore a the Accenture CIO workshop in 2003 about the fact that their "openness" is really a lie. FWIW, all Peter could do was to smile.
The games MS will continue to play
This discusses how MS wants to coerce using absolutely stupid "IP" excuses to lock out open source developers. It is still not clear yet, it should be obvious that doing the mono is a dead end (it was a dead end to start with, now it is even more obvious).
Thursday, June 02, 2005
LTSP in Singapore
Will LTSP make sense in the schools of Singapore? Well, let's see if the demo of LTSP to be held at the Nanyang Polytechnic to a bunch of school IT heads of department make any waves. We have to keep trying!
Friday, June 07, 2002
Just returned to the blogger after a long hiatus.
Had an interesting day today. Fixed the problem of not being able to get into two machines that had SuSE as the distribution of choice.
Also got WEP working on the AP at work. Kinda nice to be able to do these minor things. Feels that I am still useful somewhat.
Enough. Sleep time.
Had an interesting day today. Fixed the problem of not being able to get into two machines that had SuSE as the distribution of choice.
Also got WEP working on the AP at work. Kinda nice to be able to do these minor things. Feels that I am still useful somewhat.
Enough. Sleep time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)