[redbean]

Change in the offing?

Chua Mui Hoong wrote about the possibility of change as hinted by Chok Tong. In her view there could be changes but under the ruling party's term. The ruling party shall call the short, decide who can play and set the rules. Is this not the case all these while? The govt, she said, which is actually the ruling party, shall be the controller, the game master and shall work out a system that is fair to all players.

What kind of system, and how fair, would come out of it if the game master is also the key player with vested interest to remain as the main player?

Sue Ann Chia also discussed about the hints of coming changes, probably bigger GRCs, bigger deposits, to ensure that the ruling party continues its dominant position but with more participation in the form of nominated MPs.

The possibility of ever bigger GRCs, maybe lesser than 5, or maybe 1 or 2 cannot be ruled out. Such a change could totally rule out any opposition participation because of the extremely high cost in deposit money and their inability to gather enough respectable candidates. It will deal a death blow to the opposition and for all.

This is similar to what Zhu Ge Liang did when he advised Xiang Yu, I think, to tie all his ships together to form an unsinkable platform. It was a formidable strategy, like All In in a poker game. The rest was history.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

A debate is now on as to the tweaking of the political system for a stronger opposition party to partner the ruling PAP in the govt. And how the system will turn out will be at the discretion,magnanimity and mercy of the party in power. They will tweak the system in a way it deems fit for the participation of the opposition parties. Will the opposition parties be consulted or will they have a say in the tweaking? Will the people be consulted as well? Why am I asking such obvious questions?

The opposition parties have taken a very low presence lately. Wondering why? Have they lost their scripts or are they having a retreat to re strategise how they should play their roles to win support from the people? Or are there things that we do not know that is happening behind the scene that led to the disquiet?

What I thought a good strategy for the opposition parties is to learn from the master. The Malaysians and Indonesians refused to learn from the master and have been left behind, gasping for air and heading no where. The opposition parties need not reinvent the wheel. Just learn from the master from organisation, strategies and tactics, including styles and purposes. Just do a little tweaking on the objectives. Both are working for the people and country. The only difference is the methodology and the priorities.

The opposition parties should start with the setting up of a parallel mode of organisation structure, committees, sub committees, grassroot organisations, activities, just remember to exclude things like bicycle rides or joggings in the parks that may cause riotings. And organisations/committees or cells should include the official and unofficial, the known and the unknown, to gather support and information on the ground. But all these requires a lot of resources and manpower and the opposition can only do it in smaller scale or selectively.

I think this will be a good start. With an equivalent organisation, no need a shadow cabinet yet, the field will be more level. Both can take on each other on similar terms, strategies and tactics.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Homogenous constituencies

Our constituencies are by design, or by a stroke of nature, very consistent in their composition. The racial groups represented are similar, the rich and poor are similar and the number of people voting for the ruling party and opposition parties are also similar. The 66.6% for the ruling party and 33.4% for the opposition parties would be the norm across all constituencies.

Now, under this kind of distribution, the ruling party is more or less assured of being elected. But would it throw out a strong opposition party? For 33.4%, never! In a democratice system, one can only be elected by a simple majority. 49% also will not be represented.

Maybe we need to tweak the system to allow the 33.4% some representation in Parliament. Otherwise, because of the homogeneity of our constituencies, they will forever be left out.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Taunting the opposition

Taunting the opposition or opposition taunting the ruling party should be part and parcel of politics. The slight difference here is that it is a one way thing, with the ruling party taunting the opposition and the other side completely quiet. They were challenged to come out with alternative policies, with better candidates, with more voices to speak out for the people etc etc. What did we hear from the opposition camp? Did we hear any replies or rebuttals? Nay.

Did the opposition reply and were not reported in TOM? Or did the opposition really gone speechless? What is the use of a speechless opposition? It simply cannot be as the opposition should be seen and heard to represent the people's interest. They must be seen to do it all the time, not seasonal or cyclical.

Or is there something more sinister that we don't know? The impression I am getting is that they may be hanged by their balls. And trying to make too much noise will only lead to a tightening of the tension and increasing the pain level. So it is better to keep quiet and all peace on the western front. It is just a perception and I may be totally wrong, and the opposition could be adopting a different kind of strategy which they are keeping to themselves.

Whatever strategies, the people are watching and would want the opposition to stand up and be heard. It is unbecoming for a opposition to be on a silent mode.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

2 member GRCs

I would like to take up Shriniwas Rai's suggestion of having 2 member GRCs. I think this is getting more relevant if we look at the composition of the population. We have two main minority groups and a growing foreign talent group. The 3 together will probably make up 50% of the population. And to give every group proportional representation, we should convert all GRCs to 2 member GRCs with one member from the majority group and one from either of these 3 groups. Oh, not to miss out on our Eurasian group, they can be included as the fourth member.

So the new composition of GRCs should be one Chinese and one Indian/Malay/FT/Eurasian. The FT can be Indian, Chinese or any foreigner turned Singaporean. That should be a good thing to make sure that all groups are equally represented in Parliament.

How's that?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

A dangerous National Day Pronouncement

The Singapore model for economic development and authoritarianism is The Model for the world to emulate. This is the first time some one so close to the establishment actually, formally, admitted the term authoritarianism as an intrinsic element of our political system. There is no denial and no need for denial any more. We are a good and successful authoritarian state. This is the gist of Chua Lee Hoong's article in the ST and a must read for National Day.

And who can speak for us more authoritatively than a westerner by the name of John Kampfner, a British journalist writing for The Guardian. We have our endorsement from the liberal western world than this model might not be a bad thing. This is what Kampfner said, 'The model for this is Singapore, where repression is highly selective. It is confined to those who take a conscious decision openly to challenge the authorities. If you do not, you enjoy freedom to travel, to live more or less as you wish, and - perhaps most important - to make money....'

The strength of this system is economic freedom, to be rich, to chase your material wealth and dream, and to enjoy your rich life freely. The only condition is not to challenge the authority. Repression against those who challenge the authority is the right of those in authority, and justified.

Are Singaporeans really accepting this precept and willing to go down this path? Political challenge or offering an alternative political solution, an alternative team to run the country, cannot be a crime in any sense. In fact providing an alternative political solution must be enshrined into our system to encourage good people to challenge the system for the betterment of people and nation. But once we accept the precept that all political challenge can be lawfully and rightfully repressed or suppressed, we are in for a very dangerous slide down to a dictatorship or an authoritarian state. Is that what we want?

Some may argue, like Chua Lee Hoong, that we are already an authoritarian state and we are progressing very well. The world is looking up to us as The Model for economic growth and uplifting the livelihood of the people. We are on the right path. Really?

How much is Chua Lee Hoong's position of an authoritarian state a reflection of the thinking of the political elite? Is this her position or the position of the elite and they are giving notice to the Singaporeans, that this is the real stuff and this is what we gonna be?

In a separate article Tommy Koh wrote about the role of the legal profession and urged them to be passionate for justice and against injustice. If we are to accept repression against political challengers, do we need to consider or think about justice and injustice? Is political repression an injustice to be fought against?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

The Hsien Loong shocker

Did anyone of you hear what Hsien Loong said in his National Day Rally last night? It was a shocker alright. More space for political participation. Outdoor demonstration allowed at Hong Lim. Liberalisation of the internet for political campaigns and factual movie scripts. This is a big move definitely. The devil is in the implementation of this change. Would it be just a motherhood statement or is it real? It must be as this is broadcast over the TV and in the papers as well.

I was getting worried a few weeks back when Chua Lee Hoong was trumpeting that our authoritarian system is the alternative model to the liberal western model. I thought we are heading that way. And when Ho Peng Kee still insisted that anyone who wanted to participate in political discourse must get into the political arena, things looked grim.

Would Ho Peng Kee and his men go around cyberspace asking bloggers if they are poets, philosophers or public intellectuals, or else join a political party? Did Ho Peng Kee got Hsien Loong's message? Or would people and kids be rounded up for putting up white elephants or selling white elephant T shirts?

The reality and perception must be in sync, and the reality speaks louder if it is different from the perception or publicly announced govt policies.

If things are what Hsien Loong had said, we are marching into a new revolution, a New Age of Internet. And every blogger is a pioneer and active participant in this revolution. And we should be proud of ourselves to be in this movement.

Over the last couple of years the govt must be monitoring very closely the happenings in cyberspace. And they must find some comfort that cyberspace could self regulate, and there are decent and passionate bloggers who are airing their views, disagreeing with policies, but all for the betterment of the country and people. Cyberspace is not just rubbish and rogues and scoundrels who abuse their freedom of expression to attack people recklessly.

Mysingaporenews and redbeanforum have played a small and significant part in proving that discussion of political and national issues can be conducted rationally and sensibly. We have been in existence for quite sometime and no one has come knocking at our doors in the middle of the night.

We should continue to say our piece in the way we are doing, kpkb if necessary, to get our views heard. 90,000 hits a month, that can translate into a substantial number of people reading our news. And they will pass it to their friends and their friends to their friends. It is a communicating process that cannot be under estimated.

Keep posting fellow bloggers. Hsien Loong has given the green light. And if Ho Peng Kee ask if you are a poet, philosopher or public intellectual, tell him to see Hsien Loong for the answer.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Some still disagree with Hsien Loong's liberalisation

The ink is still wet, or the sound of clapping is still reverberating in the ears, and we are hearing the old message again. Hsien Loong has given the go ahead for netizens to blog about politics, even race and religion as long as they are treated respectfully. Now Baey Yam Keng is saying that bloggers reporting on govt issues should be regulated like traditional media. Did he attend Hsien Loong's rally?

What is more ludicrous is that he waved the flag of objectivity and responsible reporting as the outstanding trademarks of traditional media when traditional media was not only bashed in cyberspace for its stupidity and highly biased reporting recently. What kind of objectivity are we talking about? And responsible to who?

He added that the regulating of bloggers could happen in the future, but not now as the govt would not be comfortable. Is this the confidential thinking of the govt and regulation is only a matter of timing? Maybe it is only a personal view. Lam Pin Min 'was "not aversed" to credible bloggers covering press conferences to engage them in feedback.'
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

A Singapore without LKY

When Chok Tong became the PM, LKY took a step back. This was the first phase of preparing Singapore to continue without a LKY. It was the beginning of a transition. LKY was like the dowagers behind the veil, there in the background to keep things in check.

When Hsien Loong took over the rein from Chok Tong, it was expected that the transition to a Singapore would move one step ahead and be complete, and LKY would fade away from the political scene. He had achieved what he wanted for Singapore and what he wanted for himself as a father. He could spend his time telling stories to his grandchildren.

The transition of Singapore to the next phase, to run efficiently and effectively in the absence of LKY, is vital to give the impression that Singapore can continue on its own under a new leadership. And even without LKY, it will not run to a halt, there will be no leadership crisis and no drastic changes in policies and direction. The ethos and ways of doing businesses, running the country, will be as predictable as before. In other words, have faith and confidence that things will be normal.

The last couple of years have seen LKY not only in front of the veil, but walking beside Hsien Loong in the running of state affairs. In some instances he was walking ahead. The direct participation of LKY in state affairs can be seen in different ways. From the positive angle, we have the strongest team ever, the Dream Team, running the country. We have two Dep PMs, a PM, an Immediate Past PM and LKY himself. It is a formidable team. The strongest team that Singapore ever had.

What is a bit troubling is that the transition of a Singapore to a post LKY era is back at square one. It is still the LKY era with LKY fully in charge. It may be a perception, a wrong perception, but still a perception. For those doomsayers, there will be a new song to be sung. Or old song actually. What would Singapore be like without LKY? Will it sink, will there be a leadership crisis, will the new team be able to manage without him? Will there be fear, a loss of confidence and a flight of capital and investment?

We have unwittingly taken a big step back in our process of having a Singapore running confidently and proving to the world that with or without LKY nothing changes. Is this good or bad?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Why so much cynicism?

We are going to have more freedom. We are going to have a bigger space to talk about political issues. Aren't these happenings great? It should be for bloggers who have been warned or subtlely told to watch their steps. The insurgent squads are still there lurking in every corners. Now it is officially sanctioned from the highest authority here, that it is ok to kpkb in cyberspace. Would the insurgents go away?

Actually many things are still unsettle. The details on how much liberalisation or what liberalisation means are still on the drawing table. Down the line, the power crazy or those used to run roughshod over people, or those who have been enjoying the freedom to talk nonsense with impunity, would still want to hang the noose on the tree branch, just in case it is needed, or as a warning that it can be brought back. The comfort zone of no one talking back is now threatened and the feeling is not very easy.

Then for the believers of human rights, individual rights, rights to freedom of expression, these people will be angrier. To them, these are our basic rights. What is there to give back to the people? It is akin to the money collected from GST. It is our money in the first place. What's the big deal giving them back as handouts and we are supposed to be grateful?

For the time being, there will be a lot of discussion on definitions, how much to give and what to give or not to give. The opposition corner may want to try organising big walks or mass cycling events to test the water. Would the same reasons be given not to approve such events?

Take it positively, it is always good to have something return to you when they have been taken away or not consider yours in the first place. I would like to see some liberalisation in the CPF so that we can take some of our money back, those that are kept to a point that we may not see them until after we die. Even a few dollars will also be good. Better than not having them back at all. And Singaporeans will be eternally grateful.

We are very easy to please. Let's enjoy the new freedom as much as we can and stop bickering about it. Time to open that dusty bottle of champagne. Singaporeans are so lucky that they need not have to fight for their rights. We have a listening govt that will give us our rights when we mature as responsible and thinking people.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

A day without LKY

I posted about this a few weeks back. The news that LKY's heart is fluttering is troublesome even on a Sunday morning. Would his heart dare to attack him?

My earlier post was on the transition of power and of a Singapore that can continue to hum quietly and efficiently without LKY in the govt. And we have all the time in the world for that to happen with him retiring to a non govt position. But LKY is around and in the govt, for an uninterrupted period of half a century. The thought and fear of what Singapore will be like without him is going to be very uneasy.

Modern Singapore has never had a day without LKY. Now this can happen without notice. The possibilities are endless and the uncertainties are unhealthy.

If only LKY had backed out from the govt 10 years ago, life will go on as per normal with or without him when his time is up. Now the suspense is just beginning. Nothing is settled until the so called fat lady sings.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Time for a minority PM

There were many discussions about the eventuality of a minority PM in govt. This is a rather sensitive issue that is close to the hearts of the minorities. It is only a natural human instinct that they want to see their own kind becoming successful, rising to the peak of any profession. And as the number of the minorities grows in strength, the voice will be louder.

The rooting for a minority PM should not be seen as a racial thing. It is just their aspiration. But if the majority takes a stand that the PM must be from the majority, then it may be seen from a different light, maybe a racist thing. So the majority should not talk too much about such an issue and let the minorities air their 'grievances', a bit of letting off the steam.

From my observation of events, it would not be long before a minority PM be elected by popular vote. We have excellent minority ministers in the like of Tharman, Vivian and Shanmugam. They stand a head above the others in terms of leadership quality, charisma and eloquence. And professionally they are the cream of their profession. All they need is to turn on their offensive charm.

And knowing the shallowness of the majority politicians in politics, though they all believe that they are shrewd and inborn politicians, they will soon vote for a minority PM. As far as politiking is concerned, the majority is at best naive or plainly inadequate. Look at all the interest groups and associations and it is no surprise that the one that is calling the shot is often from the minority. Anyone from the majority that assumes the position of chairman or president is likely to be a pet of the real power holder.

Another point in favour of the minority is that the majority are also believers in meritocracy. And when they see a better candidate than themselves, they will be the first to give the candidate their full support.

My advice to the minorities is to be impatient. A minority PM is a high probability. And they may get a bonus, with a minority President and a minority PM at the same time. They need not wait for long.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

We create our own model and our own problems

During the early days of our independence, we were still suffering from the colonial hangovers. The residence were not all citizens and still lived as if they were British subjects. Home or obligation was to their motherlands. This island was a transitional place, to make a living and to return to their homelands. Do they bother about who became the Prime Minister or was he of a particular race? In fact they were more accustomed to a European face as the political master. And if not, anyone would do. It was not their concern. For those who were eligible to vote, a minority, they could vote whoever they want. No hard feelings, no emotional attachment, no ethnic pride to boot. They knew that they were just migrants, did not belong here.

After 45 years of independence and nation building, we have created a fragile nation from the various races. We wanted one people regardless of race and religion. But we also want every race to retain their own identity as their cultural ballasts. The is our paradox. We want to be one but our policies do not turn us into one. Our identity card still says we are of this or that race.

Can we then rise above our racial divide and become one people? There was a time when we were moving closer as one people. Then we have this influx of foreigners whom we called new citizens. They came and they accentuate our differences more distinctly. We are back to square one, to redevelop a new people from all over the world. As the number increases, prepare for more diversities and pulls into all directions.

If we have let our socio political development to continue without the disruption of the new citizens, the issue of what colour is our PM will be naturalised over time and a good man will be seen as a good man, regardless of race or religion, and will just fit into the shoe without much hullaboo. The more we raise such questions, the more will be the awareness of our differences and the sensitivity of why not a minority PM.

Only time can overcome such differences. But if we keep diluting the pot and prevent a Singaporean identity to surface, we only have ourselves to blame.

Two possible path forward to alleviate such an issue. Since we have regarded PRs as locals, it may be better to keep them as PRs. Then they will know how to shut up and stop demanding for their rights as a citizen and for their own PMs, like what we were during the colonial time.

The other is to continue what we are doing, have more new citizens and be prepared for the new interest groups to demand recognition of their tribes. Maybe we should evolved a system with 4 or 5 PMs each of difference races.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

I posted about the possibility of a minority PM and issues like keeping foreigners as PRs as well as having different PMs for different ethnic groups. I am not having much of a discussion, or interest shown in them. Is it a case of distinterest or apathy? Anyone agree or disagree with what I have said? I taunted by saying that the 3 Indian ministers are better than the rest of the majority and I thought this will provoke some reactions. Maybe everyone agrees huh?

Or maybe not. Maybe all our locals are not good enough and we should be looking at the new citizens, the FTs that are presumably better than the locals and are here to save us and provide us with better genes. The first foreign talent I have in mind is Gong Li. She is making a lot of money and well known internationally. How? At least she makes more money than any of our ministers and should qualify as a supertalent.

The next possible candidate is Taksin. A former PM looking for a job and a home. And he has proven himself more than worthy in all areas to be a possible PM. I think he will have no problems blending in here as he has been here many times. And he has money!

Hey, how about Vijay Singh? He was here before, like Obama in Indonesia. He should feel very comfortable being one of us. And he is a supertalent as well, making a lot of money and world famous.

These are candidates that we can identify with. And there are many more who are already citizens and living with us. I think our talent pool is much richer now with all the FTs who have turned citizens.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

The people are ready for minority PM

Not only are the people ready for a minority PM, the political system is also ready for it. We have the GRC to ensure the presence of minority MPs. And we have a system whereby the PM is elected by the cabinet or core leaders which can be counted by a pair of hands or maybe add a pair of legs. These are the wise men and women that decide who is the PM, not the people.

The people are not ready? Who says so? Is there a poll being conducted? From the discussion in the media and cyberspace, the majority are all very happy to have a minority as a PM. They all believe in meritocracy and the best man or woman wins. And this feeling for a minority PM is especially more pronounce among the majority as many have already been colour blind after 45 years of being a Singaporeans.

Look at the inter racial marriages taking place and you will know that the majority loves the other races more than their own kind, and have no inkling of racial differences. Malay, Indian, European, all are happily married to the majority. And many from the majority have spoken up in favour of a minority PM.

And we have tested this with the elected Presidency. The current elected President is a minority and happily accepted by the majority. He is also very popular across the races.

In short, Singaporeans are already colour blind. I am not too sure of the new citizens who are still very conscious of their own ethnic identity.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.