The Sedition Act

The link to the Sedition Act (Chapter 290) [Link]. In general, I have listed the major sections of the ACT that are of concern to all bloggers on the net:

[Quote] "
Short title.
1. This Act may be cited as the Sedition Act.

Interpretation.
2. In this Act —

"publication" includes all written or printed matter and everything whether of a nature similar to written or printed matter or not containing any visible representation or by its form, shape or in any other manner capable of suggesting words or ideas, and every copy and reproduction or substantial reproduction of any publication;

"seditious" when applied to or used in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing qualifies such act, speech, words, publication or other thing as one having a seditious tendency;

"words" includes any phrase, sentence or other consecutive number or combination of words, oral or written.

Seditious tendency.
3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;

(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;

(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —

(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;

(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;

(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or

(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore,

if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

(3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence under this Act, the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact such act had, or would, if done, have had, or such words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.

........." [Unquote]

For the full Act, please refer to the link. I advise every blogger to review their own blogs and check against the Act for compliance.

For mine, in general, I am safe. I have been advocating that the only way to beat the ruling party is to emulate their campigning methods and win against them using as such. Also, I have been against the provision of guarantee for the minority races in Singapore because we are Singaporean and each and every one of us should earn their rights to do certain things based on merits and honours and not because they have been allocated that rights by-law.

Singaporean We Are

Some spoof comics on our general Singapore behaviours.

Why EIGHT DIFFERENT Elephants? My Take on it!

I watched with great amusement and interest when the news at 5, 8, U and CNA keep on repeating the same OLD news on the "white elephant" event. You can read the news here - AsiaOne and Channelnewsasia.com.

If we are living in Thailand or Cambodia, I am sure Dr Vivan Balakrishnan, the Minster for C.D.Y.S., must be glad to find the 8 white "beautifully-cut" elephants! I quote a passage from 1 website "In legend the Royal White Elephant brought sacred power. It brought fertility." [Link].

Alas, we are not living in those countries where seeing a white elephant, real or otherwise, is a great blessing. What then is a the meaning of a white elephant? I found 1 very interesting explanation and I would like to share with all.

From nationmaster.com, it is explained as such "......In the past, lower grade white elephants were given as gifts to the king's friends and allies. The animals needed a lot of care and, being sacred, could not be put to work, so were a great financial burden on the recipient - and only the monarch and the very rich could afford them. According to one story, white elephants were sometimes given as a present to some enemy (often a lesser noble with whom the king was displeased). The unfortunate recipient, unable to make any profit of it, and obliged to take care of it, would suffer Bankruptcy and ruin......" [link].

Bingo! There we are! So are we breeding a white elephant at Buangkok? I wish our government (or garmen in Singlish lah or cheng hu as described by Ah Goh) can answer that with DEFINITIVE answer and not VAGUE avoidance. It is as good as I asking you "Where is the moon?" and was given and answer such as "It is where it will be. It is there when it is time to be there.". These are not acceptable answers to me!

Why use 8 white elephant and not 1? Look carefully and you should realise from Dhoby Ghaut interchange to Sengkang interchange, Buangkok station should be the 8th station to be open for business! Woodleigh station is still sleeping till all the lingering souls have been removed from that area. It does look bad or rather devastating on his/her heart senses for a passenger on a passing train to see a headless soul sitting on the bench waiting for the ghost train.

Now to the most interesting part - Why 8 DIFFERENT elephants and not 8 UNIFORM elephants? How I wish I know the person(s) who did it and ask them! Ask yourself, isn't it more simpler to make uniform placards from 1 design than to create 8 placards, each with different expressions?

Conspiracy theory and my inner senses tell me the following:

If the creative people(s) put up 8 uniform elephant placards, they will be showing the following messages:

(a) That the station is a white elephant and they don't like a white elephant sitting beside them when they are paying for some stupid fare increase on buses

(b) That they are actually really protesting (in a protest, there are only angry peoples)

(c) That they did not make an "effort" to seek other recourses, so they make 8 relatively easy-to-duplicate placards to protest (that is, protesting for the sake of protesting)

As we all know, the government does not tolerate any kind of anti-establishment activities in a non-legal way. Hence, if the creative people(s) were to be deemed to have committed such activities, they will be arrested very soon. I don't believe there aren't fingerprints on the placards by these people or by the supplier selling the placards to these people. It's a matter of time of the law catching up with them.

Will the police take action? Perhaps the media should quickly seek clarifications from them soon. Then we will know!

So putting up of 8 uniform white elephants is not the way to go! Then how? Put up 8 different white elephants, each with different facial expression! Why is that so that this action is more acceptable to the government (in the hope that they will not pursue further actions)?

(a) Some elephants are smiling and some are sad
(The creative people want to pass the message that they are actually happy to have the station in their area and they appreciate what the government has done for them but they are quite sad that they can't have the benefits of using the station now)

(b) I don't remember reading about any of the elephants has an angry expression
(They want to tell the government that they are not here to protest. Rather, they just want to pass a message to the visiting Minister)

(c) All the 8 different placards take MUCH effort to produce
(They are putting up some "illegal" thing for 1 time only. Because if they are protesting for the sake of protesting, it is much simpler to put up placards cut together - uniformity. Therefore, by putting up 8 unique white placards, they spent so much effort to do it that there won't be a second time.)

All these are my personal opinions on the interesting event that took place on Sunday at Buangkok station. I saluted them for their creativity! For your reading pleasure only!

How to win a G.R.C. in 2006 [Part III]

The 3rd installment of my analysis on how the Worker's Party (WP) can win the Aljunied GRC from the hands of the People's Action Party (PAP) will focus on the possible line-up from the ruling party in the coming election.

With all due respect to the MPs of Aljunied GRC, there is only but 1 crowd-puller - BG (NS) George Yeo, the Minister for Foreign Affairs! What can the likely-to-be contesting WP put up as candidates? Nothing much actually, IMHO. However, there is a greater regard of sentiments towards credible opposition candidates. This is where the WP should aim for, otherwise they will be marginised (as usual) again.

Let's look at the candidates on offer. The incumbents are:

(1) Ong Seh Hong (Dr), [Buddhism] [Link]
- Chief Operating Officer, Ren Ci Hospital & Medicare Centre
Might command a good degree of respect among th voters.

(2) Phua Cynthia, [Catholic] [Link]
- Assistant General Manager, NTUC Fairprice Co-operative Ltd
- PAP Long Service award
Here for the long term? I doubt so.

(3) Yeo Guat Kwang [Buddhism] [Link]
- Director, NTUC
Able to command respect among the voters even though he is a Director of the Union? I have my serious doubts.

(4) George Yong-Boon Yeo [Catholic] [Link]
- Minister of Foreign Affairs
The crowd-puller of the team, with or without his boss aids.

(5) Zainul Abidin Rasheed [Islam] [Link]
- Minister of State, Foreign Affairs
- Mayor, North-East CDC
Is he charismatic? Ask the ex-Cheng Shan GRC voters. Even with the attacks on TLH, the vote was close. Which direction did the Malays voted? Only God knows.

The question in mind - Who will be replaced in the coming elections? If I am not wrong, if I remembered what I read before correctly, there are many potential Malay female candidates short-listed by the ruling party. Sounds like a change of guard for Zainul (an old man of 58 in 2006) as part of renewal. With a new Malay female candidate, it's a whole new ball game - a definite refreshing change and should be a popular move among the younger Malays. This could be the winning move as well.

2 females in the same GRC team? I don't think so. Sometimes the ruling party attitudes about everything-must-go-by-the-books make the party predictable. Hence, another change for Cynthia (another 1-term candidate like Dr Toh?).

Yeo GK is deemed to be the man from the labour union - a must in any contest against the WP (which historical ground support came from the union). Therefore, expect him to remain.

Dr Ong SH, IMHO, coming from a popular and respected charitable organisation (unlike some which are infamous and are arrogant), has no reason to be bypassed by his own party leaders. Therefore, I guess he is staying put. Also, there shouldn't be too much changes in people in GRC in any election.

Therefore, expect the lineup for the PAP for Aljunied GRC as:

(a) DR ONG SEH HONG
(b) {new Indian/Chinese male candidate}
(c) MR YEO GUAT HWANG
(d) BG YEO YONG-BOON, GEORGE
(e) {new Malay female candidate, maybe a potential Minister-of-State}

The next blog shall look into the kind of candidates that I think the WP should field to counter each and every contesting member from the PAP.

The REAL WORLD that we PLAY in [Part 2]

My 2nd and last part of this topic will focus on the disagreement between Mr Goh and myself on the paper qualifications issue [Link].

Is the qualifications of the candidates in any elections important? Absolutely! Note the differences between the importance of qualifications and criterias FOR qualifications. E.g., in the just past Presidental Elections, qualifying criterias were imposed on any candidates wanting to contest and I do not agree with the ruling party on this point. It is for the general public to decide who they think is qualified and not a 3-man PEC!

Nonetheless, qualifications of any candidates are still important. Put it simple. The present PAP MPs and Ministers are known to us for a very long time. Whenever they decided to renew and shuffle their ranks, there will be annoucement and interviews in the media. We (the general public) get to read about the biography on them, see them answering questions on TV, appearing in pre-elections campaign walks, etc. In other words, the general public is being educated on the new candidates!

What's new on the opposition front? Nothing precisely. Let us moved slightly back into history in the election year 2001. I remembered clearly reading on nomination day the names of Abdul Rahim Bin Osman and Tang Liang Hong for the 1st time!!! The names of Huang Seow Kwang and Tan Bin Seng are known to me before I do follow elections since young (1984). The same cannot be true for the ignorant general public whom I already declared that we ordinary Singaporean are apathetic towards politics. Only the last candidate - J B Jeyaretnam is known to many people, if not all.

Teach me, how are we, the general public, supposed to know who are these don't-know-from-where people who suddenly pop-out from the shadow into the limelight! We know nuts (not peanuts) about these "new" candidates at all! That is a sad fact that the opposition parties always think they must be tatical about their "secret" weapons and launches them only during the elections!

Without being given enough time to understand these new candidates, what can we, the general public, do to evaluate? Of course, we start to look at their CV, just like any company employing new staff! We do not know them so we have to look at CV! What is important inside the CV? Other than the job history, the paper qualifications are equally as important! It is that important that the opposition parties never realise it and keep insisting that the general public judge them based on what they ARE GOING TO DO! No way, the general public will only evalute you on WHAT YOU HAVE DONE BEFORE!

I have attended rallies of the opposition parties before (WP for Cheng San GRC in 1997). The turnout was good. Let put it as an optimistic figure of 10K per rally in Yio Chu Kang and Hougang stadiums. If I remembered correctly, there were 3 rallies in total. And to be optimistic again, we assume that no one attended more than 1 rally - this gives a total audience of 30K! How big is the electoral voters in Cheng San GRC? Nearly 93K in voter size! How much did the rallies captured? Only less than 30% (in the super optimistic estimation). How much do the rest of the voters know about the candidates? Nothing except those reported in the local media!

This come back to a comment made by Mr Goh Meng Seng in his reply to my comment in his blog (link see above). I am going to quote a whole paragraph on what he wrote again:


"As a responsible voter, each and everyone of us should exercise judgement carefully based on "KNOWING" the candidates, instead of being fed by the mass media's proporgandus materials."


If you read what Mr Goh has written, he EXPECTS the general public to become more pro-active and take the initiative to go and understand the new candidates that suddenly appeared from nowwhere. It becomes our fault if we failed to do so (to listen to these new candidates on rallies) and stay at home and read the mass media propaganda and "biased" views on these new opposition candidates and regard these new candidates as described (even though it may not be true)! I called this "theory of expectations" ABSURD!

Let me use another analogy to compare the various parties. Imagine there are 5 shops, 1 big (B1) and 4 small (S1, S2, S3 and S4), in a building selling massage equipment, all selling different brands with different focus.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Big1 way of doing business:-
(The PAP is as big as you want them to be)

- open for business every working day
(Everyday they are working, not just during elections)

- sell all ranges of high-end massage equipment
(Offers candidates from different industry but they belongs to the elites)

- offer customers a complete solution
(They control everything - Parliament, union, CDC, PA, etc)

- all the equipment work in sync when combined
(All the organs of the party complements each other)

- advertise in the media on what their massage equipment can do
(Prepare the public for new type of candidates)

- advertise before season changes on new equipment coming soon
(Introduce the new candidates to the public before election year)

- renew some of the outdated equipment every season changes
(Withdraw some old MPS every election year)

- come up with new patents every so often
(Generates ideas that becomes laws - some good, some notorious)

- some of the patents are modified
(You decide for yourself, I make no comment)

- sue the other shops for claiming the big1's massage equipment can do damage
(Just look at the who's who of Singaporean in Australia)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Small1 way of doing business:-
(SDA is one of the biggest opposition)

- open for business frequently
(Only few are actively in the news)

- sell some mid- to low-ranges of massage equipment
(Unable to offer highly-educated candidates yet)

- cannot offer customers a complete solution
(Unable to form alternative)

- all the equipment are from different supplier, so they don't sync
(All members belong to other component parties - you sure that are of 1 mind?)

- no advertisment, but customers know their 1 and only 1 best, popular but old equipment
(Who else do you know of other than Mr Chiam ST and maybe Mr Steve Chia?)

- sometimes advertise before season changes on new equipment coming soon
(Mr Steve Chia was introduced before the elections)

- sometimes add new equipment every season changes but never withdraw any
(No renewal plan that I know of)

- come up with good new ideas at times but no patent
(Mr Chiam ST has some very good idea like common market with Malaysia)

- some of the ideas become patented by the big1
(Search yourself for an answer; no comment from me)

- sue 1 of the small shop for damage to reputation
(Mr Chiam ST sued SDP's members before)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Small2 way of doing business:-
(WP is also another big opposition party)

- open for business frequently
(Only few are actively in the news)

- sell all ranges of massage equipment with low-, mid- to high-end
(Offer from ppl with certs to ppl with PhD but none is elite)

- cannot offer customers a complete solution
(Unable to form alternative)

- all the equipment work in sync when combined
(Party has been around for a very long time - matured)

- no advertisment, but customers know their 1 and only 1 best, popular but old equipment
(Who else do you know of other than Mr Low TK and maybe Dr Poh?)

- never advertise, but expect customers to come and know their new equipment
(New candidate appeared from don't know where in every elections - e.g. TLH, James Gomez)

- sometimes add new equipment every season changes and throw out old equipment to the dustbin waiting for other to pick up and use
(Ask JB Jeyaratnam about it)

- always like to look at other peopl patent and offer modifications [Mistake! Wasn't meant for this small2!]
(Have not seen much originality yet) [Mistake! Wasn't meant for this small2!]
- offer ideas more for the lower-end models
(Ideas do not cater to all levels of society)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
I saved my breath for S3 (SDP) and S4 (DPP). They are just not worth mentioning.

The REAL WORLD that we PLAY in [Part 1]

I would like to thank Mr Goh Meng Seng [Blog] for spending his time in engaging a lively debate with myself in an entry of his blog titled "Checks & Balances" [Link]. I have reach a point where I need to divert to discuss about a topic (my continuation of Part 3 of How to win a GRC in 2006 will continue later, stay tuned).

I am a citizen of Singapore, born here, live here and most probably will die here. There are so many sets of rules and laws that we must abide. However, these laws are generally unheard of and not informed of until the day you commited an offence against these laws. Too late! For example, the Woman's Charter was created long before I could understand what is law about. Was the sets of law thrown onto my desk and declared it's up to myself to read it and understand it and abide by it. The answer is no! That's a sad fact. Hey we are talking about the pre-Internet period before 1994 where Internet was commercialised. Is every citizen expected to queue up at the Ministry of Law and pay a sum of money to buy a set of laws that most probably 90% of the population do not understand (the lawyer jargons used) at all?

Anyway, the topic today is about the R E A L I T Y of engaging in politics in Singapore. I am going to quote a paragraph written by Mr Goh MS and to be fair to him, I am quoting the whole paragraph:


"I do not believe in "conformist" approach, else I won't be in opposition politics in the very first place. It may just be true that MAJORITY of Singaporeans would just put great importance on paper qualification and we may have to play to the tune of this mindset, but deep down in our hearts, we must not be swayed or "corrupted" by such notion. In fact, it should be our mission to educate the masses the fallacy of elitism. Yeah, it is going to be tough job against REALITY but hey, who says it is going to be easy?"


Soccer is the number 1 sports in Singapore, if not the world. I don't need to proof that because FIFA has already proven that based on how much TV money they can command for World Cup as compared to other sports. So I am using the analogy of soccer to talk about the topic on engaging politics in Singapore - so that everyone who is "layman" or "heartlander" enough can understand.

The stadium is the place we will be to watch a soccer match. On the field, there will be 2 teams, the home team and the opposition team, of 11 players each with maybe 5 reserves and the backroom staffs (inclusive of coach). There is a set of rules, decided by FIFA and customised to local needs. There is a referee in charge and 2 linesmen assisting the referee.

The home team owns the stadium. They decide where to position the supporters of home and the opposition teams to the north, east, south and west stands inside the stadium, and of course, to their advantages.

The media inside the stadium are mostly from the home team's city and not from the opposition team's village.

A friendly match was arranged between the home team and the opposition team. In preparation for the game, the home team engages 16 good players (with 5 star players) and a master tactician as the coach. The opposition team, being from a poor village, somewhat to assemble 11 kampung players (with 1 good player but no reserve) and a untested coach.

When the match starts, the crowd will be roaring in support behind the home team - like the 13th player (the 12th player is the referee - when he is "kayu"). From the start, the advantages is clear, it is an uphill tasks for the opposition team to win the match.

When 1 of the kampung player is about to score (maybe from a questionable off-side position), the linesman raised his flag for a foul. Being from the village with its own set of cultures (which may be different from the civilised world whereby the rules are set based on), the player engaged with the linesman in a heated argument. The referee comes over and promptly show the red card to the kampung player. It's a sent off and now the game is about 11 (home) against 10 (opposition).

As the match progress, 2 opposing players (1 from home, 1 from opposition) collided and both were injured. The home team promptly replace the injured player. The opposition team, without reserve, has to live with an injured player that cannot contribute to the game anymore. So the match is now 11 (home) against 9 (opposition).

Can kampung player beats star and good players? Statistics say no! So the match ended 50-1, another world record! The next morning, the media writes all about the glory of the home team, interviews the winning coach and nothing about why they let in 1 unforgivable goal nor an interview with the opposition coach (deemed to be unable to push the sales of the newspapers).

Who are the relations from the soccer game to reality? They are (no name will be stated):

Stadium - country
N, E, S, W stands - GRC
city - rich party with cosmopolitans
village - poor party with heartlanders
home media - government-linked (partly owned) media
home team - ruling party
opposition team - opposition party
sets of rules - laws
star player - ministers
good player - elite MPs
kampung player - opposition candidate with certs (not degree)
referee - judiciary system
linesman - lawyers
sent off player - opposition candidate seeking refuge in Australia
injured home player - past MP charged in court
injured opposition player - bankrupt opposition candidate
score of 50-1 - the REALITY in parliament

Such is the reality that the opposition parties in Singapore have to face and have to play with. Most importantly, they must play and not continue complaining about being unfair. Stop complaining! Brush up you skills, recruit better players and use strategies to beat the ruling party at their own games!

Can you don't "conform" to the rules? Imagine if the opposition wanted to play rugby on a soccer field and in a soccer match! Disaster!

The ball was never in your court! Don't expect it to be passed into your court. Go to the opposing court and played their game and try to beat them to it. Then dribble the ball back to your court. That's the only way! There is no use complaining and getting upset and refusing to play or refusing to comply with the rules. It is of NO USE!

This is R E A L I T Y! It's time to wake up and I will welcome you to the REAL WORLD if you decided to play by the rules!

In part 2, I shall discuss what is this thing about paper qualifications that Mr Goh and myself have disagreement on! Stay tuned.


[P.S. (to Mr Goh): Engaging in debate with you is good. It gives us the opportunity to understand you and your mindset better. Who knows, one day I might be one the voters deciding between yourself and the PAP candidate on the ballot box in some GRC/SMC. I have 1 vote and I have great influence on another 3 votes at least. Try to convince me first and the thousands of voters before we will toss the lots on your side. Oh yes, this is Part 1 of my answers to your comment in your blog (link - see above). And yes, I used the Art of War against you. It's better to play the game in my court and let you defend against it than to play the game in your court and me defending my comments.]

How to win a G.R.C. in 2006 [Part II]

As promised, here is the 2nd part of my analysis on how the opposition, namely the Worker's Party (WP), can wrest a Group Representation Constituency from the People's Action Party (PAP) in the up and coming General Elections, which will mostly likely be held in 2006 (dates for us to guess).

To recap, I summarised that previously I written about 2 crucial factors may determine whether the WP can win the Aljunied GRC from the PAP - the political atmosphere during the elections; and the qualities of the candidates. In this blog, I shall elaborate further on the first factor only.


(a) The Political Atmosphere

If the General Elections were to be held now, my bet is on the PAP losing much ground support from their previous resounding wins (over 75% approval rate in the contested wards) in 2001. The political atmosphere is just not right at the moment. The people, minus the silent civil servants, minus the active unionist, is grumbling.

Here are some hot topics that, in my opinion, will not fade away so fast:


(i) The NKF saga threw out light about the lack of transparencies in the charitial organisation, which was so used to winning lawsuits before. The topic to provoke here is whether is there any transparencies in whatever agencies(I shall not named them) the people can think of?

(ii) Mr Andrew Kuan stirred the honests' nest with his unanticipated attempt to be eligible for the Presidental Elections. The topic here is about the dissappointment of the general public on the high-handed treatment of the government in slamming the poor soul. Also of dissappointment is the lack of contest.

(iii) The topic on integrated resorts and their casinos (IR for short) is another potential landmine topic waiting for someone to step on and let it explodes.

(iv) The LTA and their 1-month eviction notice on property owners of FREEHOLD land sitting on top or nearby a construction site of the MRT line goes to show how dissrespectful and shabbly the oridinary citizens have been treated by government agencies.

(v) More to come...


Alas, the General Elections (GE), in my opinion, will not be held till Mar-2006! The government will be very "kind" to allow the general public the longest possible time for them to forget the controversies. Generally the elections are held over school holiday so that the school facilities can be used as voting centres and centralised counting centres. The term of the current Parliament ends on Jan-2007. Hence, this works out to the possibilities of the General Elections being held by Dec-05, Mar-06, Jun-06, Sep-06 or Dec-06. Let play the guessing game!

Dec-2006 is too close to the end of the term. If unforseen events like NKF-like saga or economic downturn or retrenchment happen during or close to that period, there is no escape for the PAP. Whacked they will be! I rate the chance of the GE occurring in this period - 10%.

Dec-2005 is too close to the decision on the selections of IR developers. The topic here is how much jobs will be created and how much of these jobs will go to Singaporean! Unless, the government, which will obviously has the 1st hand information from the bids submitted for the IR, is very confident that the IR proposals they are going to lay out for the general public consumption and digestion will be positive. That gives them the possibility to held the General Elections then. Otherwise, the memories of the public will still be fresh on the controversies. I rate the chance of the GE occurring in this period - 25%.

Between Jun-2006 and Sep-2006, there is nothing much to choose from - no preference. However, Sep-2006 is too close to the end of the terms, so preference is for Jun-2006, my guess. I rate the chance of the GE occurring in this period - 30% (for Sep-2006) and 50% (for Jun-2006). If today is May-2006, then the chance for a Jun-2006 GE is 85%.

As for Mar-2006 (as compared to Jun-2006), the downside is that the dates the government can select is limited (narrowed down to the 1-week school holiday in that month). Of important in this period is the presentation of the Singapore Budget 2006 by the Finance Minister (also the Prime Minister lah!). Singapore financial year starts from April and ends in March every year. So the budget for the financial year 2006/07 must be generally be approved by that month. Why then have the GE in the same month (mostly probably after the Budget '06)?

Generally, my guess is that in every year that has a GE in the same year, there are plentiful of goodies and candies that our "gracious" government will start to hand out to each and every citizens. Of course to be fair to them, our government DO hand out goodies in other years. But nothing beats the visibilities of the imperative goodies in election year!

Our fiscal budget has been balanced (+ surplus) since the last Budget '05. With the non-impeded growth that we are enjoying now (before the forecoming periods of decline due to oil, terrorism and uncertainties in Iraq), the government financial health is indeed very healthy. And the hand-outs for next year budget will come from these surpluses - expect it to be good.

Back to the GE topic, with such goodies given out, the ever-dominant PAP is on the roll. What better times to have an GE than just after the budget parliamentary sessions? Therefore, my predictions will be that the General Elections will most likely be held in March 2006, subjected to changes depending on the political atmosphere at that time! The greatest hint will be when the government presents the Budget '06 in Feb-2006.

Wait for my next blog on my analysis on the who I guess will be the candidates for the PAP and what sort of candidates the WP should counter with.

How to win a G.R.C. in 2006 [Part I]

In the up and coming General Elections, the opposition parties cannot hope for a better time than the situations these days. They had the bad luck in the previous General Elections, held in 3rd Nov 2001, whereby the voters generally throw their lots for security and stability. Such is the (unfortunate) situation after the 9-11 terrorist incident in the USA.

Generally in the elections since the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) concept was formed, in my opinions, the younger voters preferred to have the one of the opposition parties wins one of the GRC but were hoping that the win do not occur in his/her GRC!

Looking at the current map of the electoral division [1] in Singapore, and assuming that the electoral boundaries do not change much (where my belief is there will be changes in Sembawang and Holland-Bukit Panjang GRCs [2] at least!), where can we find a GRC that the PAP is weak in?

The answer can be found from the history of the General Elections in Singapore! In 1988, the weakest GRC was Enuos GRC [3] with the PAP (comprising of Chew Heng Ching, Tay Eng Soon and Zulkifli Mohammed) won the GRC with 36,500 votes (48.2%) against the WP (Lee Siew Choh, Mohd Khalit B Md Baboo, Francis Seow) with 35,221 votes (46.5%). [Key members are in bold italic]

In 1991, the same expanded Enuos GRC [4] was again won by the PAP (comprising of Chew Heng Ching, Charles Chong You Fook, Sidek B Saniff, Tay Eng Soon) with 45,833 votes (49.4%) against the WP (Lee Siew-Choh, Mohamed Jufrie Mahmood, Neo Choon Aik, Wee Han Kim) with 41,673 votes (44.9%). Note that in this election campaign, much of the attacks were directed at Mohd Jufrie and his fiery Malay-centered idealogy. This cost the WP the crucial Chinese votes.

In 1997, after the death of Dr Tay (a full Minister), the Enuos GRC was disbanded and was absorbed by Aljunied, East Coast and Marine Parade GRCs. The attention turned to Cheng Shan GRC [5]. The PAP (comprising of Heng Chiang Meng, Lee Yock Suan, Michael Lim Chun Leng, Yeo Guat Kwang, Zainul Abidin Rasheed) won with 53,553 votes (51.8%) against the WP (Abdul Rahim Bin Osman, Huang Seow Kwang, J B Jeyaretnam, Tan Bin Seng, Tang Liang Hong) with 44,132 votes (42.75%). The man under attack was, of course, Tang Liang Hong and his so-called Chinese chauvinist comments made during one of those TV programmes. This cost the Malay votes and put off much of the Chinese voters (my guess are the Christian-/Catholic-related voters) as well.

In 2001, Cheng Shan GRC was dissolved and was absorbed by Aljunied, AMK and Pasir Ris-Punggol GRCs. And in this election, all the opposition parties contesting the few GRCs fared badly, partly because of the lack of prominent campaigners (the better ones were in the Single Member Constituency contests) and partly because of 9-11 events.

Well, where is the next 'weak' GRC in the coming election? My guess is Aljunied GRC! They have the following - portions of the weak Enuos GRC (Enuos ward), portions of the weak Cheng Shan GRC (Punggol ward) and the weak Paya Lebar ward (PAP's Philip Tan won 12,352 votes against SDP's David Chew's 11,240 votes in 1988 [6]).

Therefore, no other GRC is weaker than the Aljunied GRC at the moment. What the WP (they are campaigning in this GRC) can do is to stay focus and actively do their parts on groundworks. And there is no better base to launch the strategy than from their Hougang SMC (which is surrounded by the Aljunied GRC)!


Are they able to win the GRC in 2006? Well, we must look at 2 factors - (a) the political atmosphere during the election period; and (b) the quality of the candidates (of both parties). I shall elaborate on these 2 points in my next blog. That's a promise and a promise is meant to be kept!

Traits of a Leader

Traits that we can find in any of the great leaders of our world:

Intelligence
- Ability to understand and reason through problems

Knowledge
- Know their problems, causes and the solutions of their focus

Respect
- The extend of which the leader can command the community's admiration

Resources
- Having the sufficient time and know-how to perform the role

Energy
- Ability to bring new perspectives to bear on the problems

Persuasiveness
- A combination of being eloquence, being inducing, as a result of one's position (as a leader), ability to to relate to the general public in simplicity, fear factor

Synoptic Thinking
- Ability to see the bigger picture

The (Un-Whole) Truth

There was a debate [1] between myself and a certain "sleepless-in-singapore" on the blog of the CEO of NTUC Income [2].

I have written a comment about telling of facts and I find it meaningful to re-produce it here. For example, if there is a scenario with the following passage:


"A mother ask her boy to go to the market to buy a fruit that cost $1. The boy, with $1 on hand, went to the market and bought the last orange for $1, sold it to an pleading old man for $2 and bought an apple for $2."


True facts but not the whole truth:

a) Boy bought a $2 fruit instead of a $1 fruit
- This statement put the boy as a dis-obedient child

b) Boy sold orange at the market
- The boy was supposed to buy fruits and not sell fruits. The statement suggested that the boy was doing illegal business

c) Boy earned $1 from the old man
- Again the statement protrays the boy as an unscrupulous and greedy person


The scenario tells us that in any situation, we should be looking at all angles towards the situation. We should understand any situation, not from our point of view, but from the involved parties' standpoints.

Remember, every coin has 2 sides to it, until proven otherwise. Likewise, a cup with water in it at the mid-point, is seen by some as a cup with half-filled water (positive opinions) but is seen by some as a cup with half-empty water (negative opinions).

Quiz of the Day (i)

Test of knowledge category: Itellectual Game

Problem: White to move - How to rescue the white stones on the left side of the board?


Time's out! Any luck so far?




Suggested solution:

Hypothetical President Election 2005

It's another no-contest in the Presidental Election 2005. The newspaper can claim whatever they like about "Singaporean welcoming the re-election of Mr Nathan.... etc". All these are but claims!! At least I did not supported him so far. Neither did I have the chance to vote for or against him. So I have to dismiss all these nonsensical 'news'. They are not news to me, they are boastful claims! The only real evidence of a support base (or lack of it) for him is when he wins (loses) the election upright in a contested election!

It's no use complaining now since there won't be another elections, now or the immediate future! Of course, I don't think I need to wait another 6 years (the term of the Presidency) to have another look at the Presidental Elections! From statistics, the life expectancy at birth for male is about 77.4 years old in year 2004 <Link>. Mr Nathan was born in 3rd July 1924 <Link>. That mean he is already pass 81 and has already pass the average. Do you think he is able to last (through the Presidency) till 87? I have my serious doubts.

Perhaps we might be having another 2 public holidays afterall! We 'sacrified' 1 public holiday unwillingly in exchange for 2? Why not? Where does these 2 holidays come from? Of course, obviously, the 1st holiday resulted from a supposingly state funeral. It's also a chance where we get the rare chance to watch a grander burial (than late-President Wee) and at the Kranji War Memorial somemore! The 2nd holiday, without a guess, is from another round of Presidental Election of course!

Back to the real topic that I want to discuss today (read the title, dude!), in case Mr Andrew Kuan has been deemed 'qualified' by the 3-man PEC (yes, our President was SELECTED by 3 persons and not ELECTED by us), what will be the result like?

Looking at the grey area we are not sure of it, even the government can't be sure of it either! Mr Chua Kim Yeow contested the Presidental Elections in 1993 after so much urging from the government itself and garnered about 38% of the electoral vote. That coming from a government-endorsed candidate!

In any election, any opposition candidate that stood up to the government will supposingly be able to gather 25% of the vote, even if the candidate himself/herself is a major screw-up! For example, the SDP MP for Bukit Gombak who won in 1991 used words like "Don't talk cock" in Parliament and was subsequently defeated in the 1997 elections with only 26.6% of the vote <Link>!

Our demography in Singapore in 2004 shows that we have 2.65 millions Chinese (about 76%), 479.3 thousands Malays (about 13.7%), 293.1 thousands Indians (about 8.4%) and the rest from other ethnic races in a population of 3.486 million population <Link>.

Here I have to assume an even spread among the races for the 25% (preferring opposition) stated above, another 35% die-hard government-fan and another 5.0% voters who will spoilt their vote (there are 133,646 votes, which is about 7.6%, not going to the late-Mr Ong or Mr Chua in the 1993 elections <Link>!). Why 5% and not 7.6%? Because among the 7.6% are voters who refused to vote for any government-endorsed candidates and both the late-Mr Ong and Mr Chua are government-endorsed candidates!


What's left are 26.6% Chinese, 4.8% Malays and 2.9% Indians (total is about 34.3% with 0.7% as minority ethnic races). Elections do have a trend in voters voting along the ethnic line! The government 'promoted' it anyway - in any GRC there must be a Malay or minority race candidate! Why can't the best candidate wins on pure meritocracy? Okay, assuming the the Indian race voted entirely for the Indian candidate, it will be 25.00% for Kuan vs 37.90% for Nathan.

Usually the Chinese voters are split. However, with the ex-Cardinal of the Catholic religion with him in-tow for the election, Mr Kuan, does garner a certain voter base among the Christians, Catholic or otherwise! There are nearly 325 thousands Christian Chinese in Census 2000 survey <Link>. Minus the 65% die-hard voters (government, opposition and spoilt), we have 113.75 thousands Christian Chinese left, which is about 3.26% of the population. If they voted entirely for religion, then it will be 28.26% vs 37.90%.

The rest of the Chinese, not listed in the above, is about 23.34% of the population. Chinese will still support a Chinese candidate afterall (die-hard voters not included). Thereby I assume a 75% preference rate for the same race, Mr Kuan will garner another 17.51% vote making the ratio 45.77% (Kuan) vs 43.73% (Nathan).

All the stated voters above are fixed simply because they are able to relate with the candidates with regard to political-party preferences, races and religions. The neutral group here is the left-over Malay voters, which has about 4.8% (die-hard voters not included)! Here is a race that has been grumbling that it should be their turn to have a Malay President in Singapore! Also, the Malay voters have been complaining about their low-representation in the government (1 full Malay Minister out of 20 Full Ministers?). Not wanting to expect too much, let put a 55% preference for opposition against the government-endorsed candidate (for not choosing a candidate from their race). The Malay voters (left-over) will be splitted into 2.64% (Kuan) vs 2.16% (Nathan).

Assuming the minority races (out of the top 3 ethnic groups) voted for stability and continuity and preferred the incumbent entirely, which gives Mr Nathan another 0.7%.

Altogether, the percentage of the votes might become 48.41% for Mr Kuan, 46.59% for Mr Nathan and 5.00% spoilt votes! Congratulations, Mr Kuan! You are my hypothetical winner of the Presidental Elections 2005!

Suffrage and Elections

What is "Election"? In general, it is a decision-making process whereby citizen (of a country) voted for preferred political candidates or parties to act as resprentatives in the government.

What is "Suffrage then? It is the citizen (of a country) civil right to vote without discrimination with regard to race, ethnicity, class or gender; or the exercise of that right.

What do we have in Singapore? Our country is known as the "Republic of Singapore". And we have an elected democratic government with the constitutional rights to govern the country. And we practised compulsory suffrage, that is, we have a system whereby any citizen who is eligible to vote is required by the law to do so.

In Singapore, we have a Westminister System where the Prime Minister is the person who holds the most power, and is formally appointed by the head of state (Elected President in Singapore's case) and in reality chosen by the legislative parliament or within the party/parties in power.

Our Elected President is NOT a head of state with ceremonial role <Explanation>. Under the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Elected President is empowered to veto government budgets and appointments to public office, on the advice of the Council of Presidential Advisors.

Our first Presidential Election was held on 28th August 1993 and the late Mr Ong Teng Cheong (with 952,513 electoral votes) was elected after a contest with Mr Chua Kim Yeow (with 670,358 electoral votes). Was it a contest? Mr Ong belonged to the government and Mr Chua was asked by the government to stand in the election, thereby, was seen as another government-endorsed candidate. Candidate A or B does not matter to the voting citizens afterall. Both of them are government-endorsed candidates and it is a matter of choosing the one whom you know much more details about and is confortable with. Mr Chua was a relatively unknown figure to the general public. Even that, he obtained about 38%<Link> of the electoral votes!

The current President, Mr S R Nathan, won the Presidential Election in 1999 without a contest. And on the 17th August 2005, he was returned uncontested again for the 2nd time.

Elections are FREE and FAIR! Are Singapore elections free and fair? Singapore elections are considered to be fair - the best candidate with the highest electoral votes wins the contest. Freein the Presidental Election? If the prospective candidate has to meet criteria A, B, C, ....., Z in order to contest the election, then it is not so free afterall. In other words, not everyone can contest the election. Therefore, that priviledge (to contest) belongs to certain categories of qualified citizens only.

Taking a leaf from the famous book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, there is a famous verse that everyone knows of - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others!". Deduce that idea yourself as I shall not defame anyone here! But I am as annoyed as anyone in Singapore who find oneself having the suffrage without the suffrage! That is, we have the equal rights to vote freely, but we are prevented from exercising that rights to vote!

Nonetheless, the result (of the no-contest election) is as expected by most of us. Refer to my earlier blog on that predicted endgame <Link>.

Oh ya! I have forgotten my manners! Congratulation, Mr Nathan! Congratulation to you becoming the [s]Elected President again!

Changes to be expected in Sembawang GRC!

Dr Tony Tan is stepping down from the Singapore Cabinet after Aug-2005. We should thank him for his contribution to the Singapore society and economy, etc. Dr Tan stepped down from the Cabinet in December 1991 and became the OCBC chairman. He rejoined the Cabinet on 1st August 1995.

Why would he want to come back to the Cabinet since obviously he is getting a much higher remuneration as the bank chairman! Is he clinging to power? Why would he be since he could have fought for the prime ministership during the early days. Or why would he turned his back on the government and returned to the private sector in 1991? Whatever the reason, it does not matter much to us, does it? :)

The topic today is the electoral division of Sembanwang GRC! Who are the elected PAP members? There are:

(1) A/P Chin Tet Yung < CV>
(2) Mr Hawazi Daipi (Senior Parliamentary Secretary) <CV>
(3) Dr Warren Lee <CV>
(4) Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman (Parliament Secretary) <CV>
(5) Mr K Shanmugam <CV>
(6) Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam (Deputy Prime Minister) <CV>

Truthfully, which of the MPs listed in this GRC have you hear of in a more frequent term, other than Dr Tony Tan himself. Frankly speaking I only hear of some parts of speeches of A/P Chin. Who is Dr Mohamad? I have never heard of him anyway. The rest? I am as ignorant as you are! More importantly, there is no other full Minister or at least a Senior Minister-Of-State in this GRC.

Therefore, there is no anchor man after Dr Tony! Is it a problem? I guess not since the PAP government has 20 full Ministers and above including Dr Tony Tan. What do we have for GRC? Right now we have 14 GRC of various sizes (assuming of course the boundaries stay constant):

GRC Name No. of MPs No. of Electors

Aljunied 5 124,475 Ang Mo Kio 6 180,715 Bishan-Toa Payoh 5 114,231 East Coast 6 146,673 Holland-Bukit Panjang 5 125,213 Hong Kah 5 139,443 Jalan Besar 5 92,361 Jurong 5 114,683 Marine Parade 6 139,586 Pasir Ris-Punggol 5 168,221 Sembawang 6 183,883 Tampines 5 124,520 Tanjong Pagar 6 141,746 West Coast 5 116,919

The table simply shows that there are more Ministers (and above) than GRC. Hence, it would be logical to deem that the PAP will move one of their 'big gun' to the Sembawang GRC during the coming General Election due by Oct 2006. It is not important to us whether the exisitng MPs of this GRC will still be standing in the coming elections. Changes are, of course, expected in the MPs rank-and-file too! But to win the GRC, which has been uncontested consecutively for 3? 4? 5? elections already, you need an anchor. Moreover, with the stepping down of Dr Tony Tan, nobody actually knows the support guage of the PAP after so long! Irregardless of what the government can claim, the only evidence of a support base is winning the GRC in an election with contest!

I have to assume that the set of 20 full Ministers will not change, which is very likely, before the General Election. The rationale behind is that it's 'easier' to win a GRC with 'well-known' face (from the current set of Ministers) than to try to win another GRC with a newly-promoted Minister! Changes and renewal can come after the election. Where are the Ministers distributed currently? They are: <Link>

(1) Mr Lee Hsien Loong
- Prime Minister
- Minister for Finance

(2) Mr Goh Chok Tong
- Senior Minister, PM's Office

(3) Mr Lee Kuan Yew
- Minister Mentor, PM's Office

(4) Dr Tony Tan Keng Yan
- Deputy Prime Minister, PM's Office
- Co-ordinating Minister for Security and Defence

(5) Prof. S. Jayakumar
- Deputy Prime Minister, PM's Office
- Minister for Law

(6) Mr Wong Kang Seng
- Minister for Home Affairs

(7) Mr Yeo Cheow Tong
- Minister for Transport

(8) BG (NS) George Yeo Yong-Boon
- Minister for Foreign Affairs

(9) Dr Lee Boon Yang
- Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts

(10) Mr Mah Bow Tan
- Minister for National Development

(11) Mr Lim Boon Heng
- Minister, PM's Office

(12) Mr Lim Hng Kiang
- Minister for Trade and Industry

(13) RDM (NS) Teo Chee Hean
- Minister for Defence

(14) Mr Lim Swee Say
- Minister, PM's Office
- 2nd Minister for National Development

(15) Dr Yaacob Ibrahim
- Minister for Environment and Water Resources
- Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs

(16) Mr Khaw Boon Wan
- Minister for Health

(17) Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam
- Minister for Education

(18) Dr Ng Eng Hen
- Minister for Manpower
- 2nd Minister for Defence

(19) Dr Vivian Balakrishnan
- Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports
- 2nd Minister for Trade and Industry

(20) Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat
- Minister, PM's Office
- 2nd Minister for Finance
- 2nd Minister for Foreign Affairs


The mix and match of the GRC to the Ministers are: <Link>

(a) Aljunied GRC
- BG (NS) George Yeo Yong-Boon

(b) Ang Mo Kio GRC
- Mr Lee Hsien Loong

(c) Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC
- Mr Wong Kang Seng
- Dr Ng Eng Hen (new Minister promoted after election)

(d) East Coast GRC
- Prof. S. Jayakumar
- Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat (new Minister promoted after election)

(e) Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC
- Mr Lim Swee Say
- Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (new Minister promoted after election)

(f) Hong Kah GRC
- Mr Yeo Cheow Tong

(g) Jalan Besar GRC
- Dr Lee Boon Yang
- Dr Yaacob Ibrahim

(h) Jurong GRC
- Mr Lim Boon Heng
- Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (new Minister promoted after election)

(i) Marine Parade GRC
- Mr Goh Chok Tong

(j) Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC
- RDM (NS) Teo Chee Hean

(k) Sembawang GRC
- Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam (to relinguish position)

(l) Tampines GRC
- Mr Mah Bow Tan

(m) Tanjong Pagar GRC
- Mr Lee Kuan Yew
- Mr Khaw Boon Wan (new Minister promoted after election)

(n) West Coast GRC
- Mr Lim Hng Kiang

The Sembawang GRC (183,883 registered electoral voters as compared to 166,137 in 2001, 6-man GRC) has 3 neighbouring GRC are AMK GRC (180,715m 166,644 in 2001, 6-man GRC), Hong Kah GRC (139,443, 129,073 in 2001, 5-man GRC) and Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC (125,213m 118,834 in 2001, 5-man GRC).

With the imminent departure of Dr Tony Tan, what do you think of the possibility of Sembawang GRC having 6-man team again? I bet the answer you are going to have is about the Sembawang GRC has outgrown its size (183k is too large?) and therefore some part of its GRC (a ward) will be cut off and give to - who? My bet in this case will be Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC. Why? There are 2 Ministers there and of course Mr Lim is the incoming Secretary-General of NTUC soon - perceived to have the support of the unions etc.

In that case, Sembawang GRC having 'out-grown' from its size will be reduced to a 5-man GRC. In simple terms, if they are going to lose the ward, lose less! But who will anchor the GRC? Mr Tharman sounds like the best candidate - prominant, of Indian-race, highly educated, etc. However, with the possible likehood of Mr Lim Boon Heng retiring, he is needed to anchor and lead the Jurong GRC later.

Mr Raymond Lim is pretty low-profile as compared to the new Ministers. Therefore, I bet is on Mr Khaw Boon Wan, who has showed us his astute and firm stand during the SARS 2003 period, will anchor the new reduced Sembanwang GRC team! This is of my opinion!

The Art of Making Decisions

Once I read an interesting powerpoint presentation titled "Train Track and Children" on the subject of Decision Making and find it very meaningful. Here's the story:

{
Train Track and Children

The story given here is quite interesting and really gives us an insight into DECISION MAKING.

A group of children were playing near two railway tracks, one still in use while the other disused. Only one child played on the disused track, the rest on the operational track.

The train came, and you were just beside the track interchange.It was not possible to stop the train but You could make the train change its course to the disused track and saved most of the kids.

However, that would also mean the lone child playing by the disused track would be sacrificed. Or would you rather let the train go its way?

Let's take a pause to think what kind of decision we could make................

Analyse the situation………….

Think and reflect…….

Decided your answer !!!!

Now … go ahead

Most people might choose to divert the course of the train, and sacrifice only one child. To save most of the children at the expense of only one child was rational decision most people would make, morally and emotionally.

But, have you ever thought that the child choosing to play on the disused track had in fact made the right decision to play at a safe place?

Nevertheless, he had to be sacrificed because of his ignorant friends who chose to play where the danger was.

This kind of dilemma happens around us everyday. In the office, community, in politics and especially in a democratic society, the minority is often sacrificed for the interest of the majority, no matter how foolish or ignorant the majority are, and how farsighted and knowledgeable the minority are.

The child who chose not to play with the rest on the operational track was sidelined. And in the case he was sacrificed, no one would shed a tear for him.

To make the proper decision is not try to change the course of the train because the kids playing on the operational track should have known very well that track was still in use, and that they should have run away if they heard the train's sirens.

If the train was diverted, that lone child would definitely die because he never thought the train could come over to that track! Moreover, that track was not in use probably because it was not safe.

If the train was diverted to the track, we could put the lives of all passengers on board at stake! And in your attempt to save a few kids by sacrificing one child, you might end up sacrificing hundreds of people to save these few kids.

While we are all aware that life is full of tough decisions that need to be made, we may not realize that hasty decisions may not always be the right one. "Remember that what's right isn't always popular... and what's popular isn't always right."

Everybody makes mistakes; that's why they put erasers on pencils.
}

I hope this will reinforce what I said on the comments <comments> on Mr Tan Kin Lian's blog <blog>.

Showing-off of new weapons on NDP05

The 40th year of independence day has passed! Every 5th year of so, the NDP, without fail, is being held at the Padang, which can hardly accommodate 15K ~ 25K of spectators. Compared this number to the enclosed atmosphere of the National Stadium, which can easily hold more than 50K of jovial crowds during National Day.

Why held at the Padang and what is its significant? The answer is of course, showing off new weapons every 5 years to the world. The Art of War stated that "Know oneself, know your enemy, one will win 100 victories out of 100 battles". Are we foolish or what? Telling all our neighbouring countries that we have this and we have that weapons, etc?

The answer if written somewhere in the one of the books on our founding father, LKY. Written somewhere in the book, our great leader enlightened us the significant of having 250 newly-acquired AMX-13 from Israel during the late 1960s being shown on National Day and the effects and hush-hush it had on the Malaysian leaders.

Bingo! We have the answer then. Every 5th year, we parade new weapons eagerly to Malaysia and Indonesia to tell them the message that we are constantly upgrading our weapons. The message is very clear! Don't come and mess with us! We will beat the hell out of any invaders.

What are these new toys? From the sky - KC-135 refilling tanker. From the sea - models of our new Formidable frigate. On land - Bionix IFV, Ultra AFV, Bronco ATTC, Spike (with HOT TOW), Primus self-propelled artillery, FH200 towed-artillery, Igla low-attitude air defence mounted on Bionix chassis, Intelligence mobile command centre, etc.

Wait a minute! Are these defensive weapons? Why do you need a KC-135 tanker to refill when in 50 secs, an F-16 Fighting Falcon will zoom pass the breath of Singapore (42km) with afterburner! To enable our fighters to reach the wide South China Sea? Did I mentioned Spratly Islands? So much local investment in artillery pieces? To flatten our motherland? Fast ATTACK vehicle to do defence?

Be very scared, Malaysia! We have mostly offensive weapons! And the only land target is YOU! Theory of our MINDEF (an old fighting theory) - in any confrontation with Malaysia over water issue (read as Israel's ex-President Chiam Herzog visit to Singapore sometimes in 1980s <- beyound my childhood memory), we will strike hard at Malaysia's Johore to secure half of Johore state, far enough to prevent Malaysia's artillery pieces to reach Singapore heartland.

The mindset of the little red dot (as described by deposed ex-President Habibie of Indonesia) in a Malay sea being seiged constantly is an old out-dated theory. What should we do then? Let's not be complacent too. We should break out from the seige mindset. The longer term goals should be to slowly but surely create confusion in Johore state and over several generations bring the sultanate of Johore over to Singapore side. The idea of a Sultanate of Singapore should be a rich carrot for any sultan of Johore in the event if Malaysia goes into turmoil one day! It's better to 'buy' the heart of the Johore sultanate than to conquer them! Ah again, it's the Art of War! It's always better to win the war without any battle and to conquer land by fear and intimidation than to ride over some wasteland as a result of war! With such a big hinderland, Singapore has room for growth!

It's but a thought! I don't think I will ever live to see it happen. All it takes is one generation of screw-up leader on Malaysia side to have that happen. On the other hand, it will also take a generation of moroons on Singapore side to put our motherland in crisis and may cause us to seek unification with Malaysia in their own Malay-Malaysian terms! Damn that bumiputra policy - a racist policy! On 2nd thoughts, hmm, please have that policy. It just damned the Malay race in Malaysia to idle! No threat to us indeed.

Who will I vote for in the Presidental Election?

First and foremost, I do hope that there is a Presidental Election in 2005! I have voted once in my whole damn life in the General Election 1997 (walkover in my ward in 2001). And I make no bone that I have had voted for the PAP in that 1997 elections! The oppositions of that time sucks big-time. And I am no fan of PAP, I just voted for the 'right' candidate that I presume will serve the nation well (not the community, I am willing to sacrifice my ward welfare to have the proper people on the national platform).

Secondly, I analyzed that there won't be any Presidental Election in 2005. The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore ("Constitution") <link> Part V: The Government, Chapter 1: The President, Section 19: Qualifications and disabilities of President states:

Qualifications and disabilities of President

19. —(1) No person shall be elected as President unless he is qualified for election in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
(2) A person shall be qualified to be elected as President if he —
(a) is a citizen of Singapore;
(b) is not less than 45 years of age;
(c) possesses the qualifications specified in Article 44 (2) (c) and (d);
(d) is not subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Article 45;
(e) satisfies the Presidential Elections Committee that he is a person of integrity, good character and reputation;
(f) is not a member of any political party on the date of his nomination for election; and
(g) has for a period of not less than 3 years held office —
(i) as Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker, Attorney-General, Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Auditor-General, Accountant-General or Permanent Secretary;
(ii) as chairman or chief executive officer of a statutory board to which Article 22A applies;
(iii) as chairman of the board of directors or chief executive officer of a company incorporated or registered under the Companies Act (Cap. 50) with a paid-up capital of at least $100 million or its equivalent in foreign currency; or
(iv) in any other similar or comparable position of seniority and responsibility in any other organisation or department of equivalent size or complexity in the public or private sector which, in the opinion of the Presidential Elections Committee, has given him such experience and ability in administering and managing financial affairs as to enable him to carry out effectively the functions and duties of the office of President.


If you had analyzed carefully, I guess Mr Andrew Kuan will somehow be judged to have failed point (e) of the Act by 17-Aug-2005 and will be refused the Certificate of Eligibility! And another walkover will prevail, in my honest opinion! I do not questioned Mr Kuan integrity, character or reputation! I do not know him afterall and I am in no position to make any comment on him! But the government does know him, the PAP does know him (I read it somewhere that he is/was a member), and the RC certainly does know him too. After all the attacks from all directions on the poor guy, who suddenly found himself seiged, the general public is 'well-educated' enough to 'know' his characters, etc. I called all these fiesto "The Great Singapore Propaganda".

Who will I vote for, in the very unlikely event that it will happen? Anyone with the compassionate of the late ex-President Wee or the guts of the late ex-President Ong. What do I feel towards our current President Nathan? No feeling - It's a fact and it's a pity. What have he spoken over the NKF saga? Nothing eventful. During SARS 2003? Nothing memorable.

In my opinion, my vote goes to - anyone but the current President! And no, I am not voting in jest! And I am not voting blindly! And certainly I am not voting without using my analytical senses! If any other candidates are deemed to be fit to contest the Presidental Election 2005 by the PEC, fair enough, he is good enough for me. It's a fact that we (general public) know nuts (not peanuts) about our Presidents before they were swored in, with the exception of ex-President Ong. I am willing to give anyone else a try if he (or she?) is deemed to be fit for selections.

In any case, I still stand on my belief that there won't be any election this year - Presidental (due this month) or General (not due till Oct 2006). The NKF is the damcles sword over the PAP at the moment. And the Integrated Resort decision is due end of this year and our government is famous for keeping its words - giving an answer on time. Such are controversies (NKF and IR) that will entangle the government in any elections they are going to hold in the near future. Hence, I am going to miss the opportunity to vote this year again.

Next year? I certainly hope so! And I pray that there won't be any walkover in my ward (oh yes, I am not giving myself away by telling you which ward or GRC I belongs to). I pray that Mr Low (of the WP) will be decisive enough to form a GRC group to contest in Aljunied GRC (encompassing his Hougang ward and so has the split-over effect). Why not Mr Chiam (of the SDA)? His alliance is too weak, in my opinion, with only 1 other well-known politician - Mr Steve Chia, the Non-Constituency MP, which some online forumers called him the No-Clothes Man. Dr Poh (of the WP), on the other hand, has a solid foundation in his Taoist/Buddhist links.

The Presidential Election Dilemma

Singapore has a short history since independence in 1965. We have from independence day, a total of 6 Presidents so far. They are Yusof Ishak (Malay), Benjamin Sheares (Eurasian), Devan Nair (Indian), Wee Kim Wee (Chinese), Ong Teng Cheong (Chinese) and S R Nathan (Indian).

We are a mutli-racial society. Our demography breakdown by ethnic groups shows 76.8% Chinese, 13.9% Malay, 7.9% Indian and 1.4% Others in the Census 200 survey (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/people.html).

We have had 2 past Chinese Presidents and 1 past and 1 present Indian Presidents. There seem to be an unwritten 'guideline' that our government seem to follow - there should be a rotation of the Presidency among the ethnic groups. Now, there seem to be this dilemma. Judging from the rotation, isn't it about time for a Malay President?

The big question will be - do you know of any suitable prominant Malay that the public know of? Let see who do we have - as of July-2005, we have 20 full ministers (including Prime, Senior and Mentor Ministers). Out of the 20, there are 16 Chineses, 3 Indians and only 1 Malay (Dr Yaacob Ibrahim). There are no other Malay full minister!

Although there are few Senior/Ministers-of-State in the Parliment, they are not around in politics for 'long'. The last well-known Malay Minister is Othman Wok who is already 80! How is the government going to find a replacement Malay to stand for Presidential Election 2005?

Without any suitable Malay candidate (suitable as in prominant and well-known to the public), the government is stuck with the incumbent, our respectable President S R Nathan! Otherwise, there will be grumbling among the Malay ethnic group, I guess.

Is S$600K peanuts?

'For a person who runs a big million-dollar charitable organisation, with a few hundred million in reserves, $600,000 a year is peanuts.' - Patron of a certain foundation
(http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,91455,00.html?)

If you go by that argument, in that case, our beloved Prime Minister is grossly underpaid!!!

Singapore, Inc. is the biggest organization that you can get in Singapore. Fortunately, for the benefit of us Citizen, this incorporation has an Official Foreign Reserves of US$115,216 millions as of Jun-2005! (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/mqstats/indicators.html) (https://secure.mas.gov.sg/masmcm/bin/pt1Official_Foreign_Reserves.htm)

Going by the same argument as that highly-educated and well-informed Patron, our beloved Prime Minister deserved a annual package of more than S$400 million! Wow! Unbelievable!

Do you think our beloved Prime Minister dare to draw this kind of money (S$400 mil) and expects to get re-elected? Going by the same line, do you think that particular CEO deserved that sum of money (S$600K)? Here we are talking about a charity in which a substantial portion of its funding come from the kind public donation?

My Blog

After reading so many blogs of other people, I guess I should keep 'in trend' with society by keeping a blog too (although somewhat I am more like a laggard)!

What should I write? Well, I don't write out-of-spite. More, I will try to make my blog tranverse in the direction of a commentry of topic such as politics, society, world, etc.

I hope for some good feedback as well. Reading from forums in youngpap, sgforums, hardwarezone, etc do give me insights and open up my viewpoint to a much broader view. Information is never useless. It is the person who has this information who decide whether it is useful <- perception, expectation and judgement.

"Perception", "Expectation" and "Judgement" are 3 powerful words to use. I shall slowly explain them what you can expect from these terms. Just like the finance people who like to talk about "transparency"! Is Singapore charities transparent enough anyway? Nonetheless, I will be withdrawing my donation to a certain infamous organization, which I called a "commerical entity" and which they declare it is a "charitable organization", soon. Damn! How I wish they will just allow me to withdraw by phone <- lack of convenient!