[redbean]

Old habits die hard
Hsien Loong has made several encouraging motherhood statements about how his govt is going forward, to be more listening, more flexible, more caring, and more inclusive. Putting all these together we can expect a more gracious govt, less purgnacious, more accommodating, more listening and a better rapport with the people. The govt wants to get closer to the people, to be more human like than god like, to admit mistakes and go forward together, no one being left out or discriminated by govt policies.
So would there be less policing of the critics of govt policies, a really lighter touch, less bickering in parliament for the sake of bickering, like you say it hor, I say you said this, be brave to admit it lah, then see what will happen? See, I challenge him and he lost. I clever right?
Would the civil servants and govt officers be less politically sensitive in the conduct of their daily affairs, and get on with the more serious stuff of the affairs of the state, regardless of political hue? Or would politicians still behave like little boys and girls trying to score political points at the slightest opportunity instead of using the Parliament as a platform to discuss and improve governance of the people and country?
Watching the clips on what was happening in Parliament, and reading what was being reported, I cannot see anything has changed for the better.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Is MSM controlled by the govt?
"Do you believe that the mainstream media is controlled, and is that why you're putting forward the proposal for these acts," asked Tanjong Pagar MP Indranee Rajah.
Indranee was asking Pritam Singh if he believes that the MSM is under the control of the govt. I think it is a fair question. Shanmugam also wanted to know and asked Pritam to answer, yes or no. Unfortunately Pritam was kind of half in and half out.
I think it is important that everyone should answer this question with a yes and no, including Indranee and Shanmugam.
I will take the first step by answering No. Just feel free to disagree with me. This is not a right or wrong answer. Just what you think. But if one’s answer is No, no further question. If one answers Yes, please explain.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Missed opportunity in Parliament

As the final curtain fell in Parliament’s first session, the big guns of the two camps took their final stand. PAP drew its best from its most eloquent and flowery speaker, Swee Say, to do his final take on the opposition’s position.

The final issue came down to be the CBF workers versus the CBF ministers, the former stands for cheaper, better and faster versus the latter version of costlier, betterer and fasterer ministers. While Swee Say coined the infamous CBF term for the Singapore workers, nothing of the like was reflected in the minister’s pay, which keeps going higher and higher. This has led to the public’s perception that the ministers were not as sacrificing as they claimed to be, but more self serving and looking only after their own gaji rather than the people.

This, according to Swee Say, was shocking. He rebutted the accusation, that ministers were working their guts out for the interests of the people, all the time thinking for the people’s welfare. If this is true, then the public must have grossly mistaken. If this is not true, then it is very frightening. Whatever, Swee Say said he was lost for words, in another word dumbfounded.

Actually he could lead by example as leaders instead of politicians, and for telling the workers to be CBF, ministers too can be CBF with the same meaning, cheaper, better and faster. For that to be believeable, he could announced that ministers would take a 50% pay cut to show to the people that they were really not self serving, working for self interest, but working for the people.

That kind of statement would be as good as giving Low Thia Khiang a tight slap for bringing the public’s negative perception into Parliament, and will straight away be proven wrong.

Well, Parliament will be in recess and it must be the biggest opportunity missed by Swee Say to score a winning goal for the PAP. And no matter how shock or dumbfounded he claimed to be, the accusation still stands and he did nothing to dispute it. The public’s perception of self serving ministers is still hanging there, waiting to be proven wrong, and to be taken down.

I am equally dumbfounded.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Of farting or alternative solution
Farting is a very easy and effortless thing to do. Everyone can do it and it does not cost anything. Looking for alternative solution to a national problem is a different matter altogether. A ministry may come out with a policy or decision to solve a problem, like the ERP. I am very sure the policy or decision does not come out like farting. It must have gone through many thinking heads, many discussions and reviews before the minister finally put his signature on it.
How many super talents would have been involved in the making of a policy or a solution? How many man hours would be needed to work on it. And the minister is not working for free either. The cost of a policy or decision is quite substantial. A consultant that is engaged to solve a problem too will charge his price based on the number of hours put in, the expertise needed and all other necessary costs involved.
Good solutions are costly, not like free fart. Anyone who asked for a free solution while he is getting paid to come out with a solution is going to get nothing more, nothing less, except farting. Why should anyone offer free solution to another who is paid handsomely to do the job but not doing it, and put in great effort, man hours and expenses for a serious alternative solution? Unless of course the person is farting, which does not require much effort and of not much value.
Anyone got any suggestions?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Beware of a welfare state

Greece was the role model for Europe’s crisis of a welfare state gone wrong. And Greece is not the only welfare state in Europe. Many are and still looking after their people through public welfare and assistance. And they have done it for many years. Canada and the US also have their own variations of a welfare state.

A welfare state is costly to the country and public. It has to be carefully managed. And many of these countries have managed their welfare system pretty well. Singapore has defended its policy of welfare by the people, of the people and from the people’s own pocket for many years. Finally we have a Greece to prove that we are right in not having a welfare state.

But are those countries that are still practising welfarism finish or near finish? One swallow does not make a summer. For the fall of Greece, there are many that are successful and still doing ok.

What is important is how much to collect and how much to give. Giving $500 to $600 a month to the down and outs will not empty our state coffers so easily. If our reserves can afford to lose tens or hundreds of billions and still can afford to lose more, a little welfarism is not going to harm the reserves. No, no one is asking to kill the golden goose or for a drum stick, just some eggs.

Definitely if the welfare comes in the millions for each recipient it is going to be very dangerous. As more and more people continue to receive million or multi million dollar state welfare, then that is a different kind of welfarism that cannot be condoned. Do we practise state welfarism of any kind here?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Opposition to put forward constructive suggestions
‘The Govt has put forward its views, and the idea of a a debate must be that the Opposition puts forward constructive suggestions on how the Govt’s agenda and policies and programmes can be improved. K Shanmugam
Shanmugam was reported in yesterday’s Today paper to acknowledge opposition’s ‘role in finding improvements to govt policies and programmes.’ He also added that all good ideas must be accepted, that all MPs are people’s representatives and representing the people’s views and aspirations.
There was a robust debate in the Parliament’s first sitting. Has any view or suggestion been accepted by the govt? Were they constructive? Or were they not? Given the way they were summarily attacked and dismissed by the ruling party MPs and ministers, it looks like the opposition still has a lot of work to do, to come out with constructive suggestions. So far it seems that they have failed.
And though Shanmugam in the same breath claimed that the PAP did not have a monopoly of wisdom, the fact that nothing from the opposition were seen as constructive suggestions or worthy of wisdom, does it not imply that the monopoly of wisdom is still with the PAP? Yes, they don’t have the monopoly of wisdom, but the opposition has none. Every statement from the opposition will be attacked or rubbished. Wow, I am going to flatter myself for the way I am arguing against myself. Everything I say is wrong and is also right.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Ministerial salary debate in Parliament
The recommendations of the Salary Review Committee will be debated on Monday 16 Jan in Parliament. It will be PAP versus others, between those going to vote for the recommendations and those against it. It will not be a debate on conscience, not about morality or decency, but a debate on policy.
Yes, Gan Kim Yong said the whip will not be lifted. This means that the PAP MPs must toe the line, and vote for the new salary. They have no choice, they cannot vote against it. But would they stand up and speak against it? No, it is a PAP policy and they must be disciplined, cannot break rank, it is us against them. Those who believe that PAP MPs can speak to oppose PAP policies, this sitting will tell them rudely that they can forget it in important issues like this one.
The stage is set for a bi partisan debate, with PAP for and others against the recommendation. It will be 6 against 81. And the vote is final and the recommendations will be approved. The bill is passed, or as good as passed even before Parliament sits. This is democracy, the rule of the majority…in Parliament.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Protect our ministers

Don’t give me that puzzled look can? I was thinking of another title, ‘The temptation of Jesus Christ’, but that may be too religious an approach. There are many reasons why Sinkies need to stand up to protect the ministers. And there are many known and good reasons to do so. We were told that they are the crème ala crème of the super talents on this piece of rock. This must be a good enough reason for many Sinkies. Many also believe that they are the best people to run this country. Without them, the economy is going to go downhill, prices of properties will collapse, many would become foreign workers. There will be a flight of capital and investments and we will slide back to the Third World. Our reserves and CPF savings will become banana currency. We don’t want that to happen.

There is a more basic reason to want to protect the ministers. The most fundamental assumption of the Ministerial Salary Review Committee is that the ministers are also humans. This rude revelation is a big departure from the assumption that they are immortals. Good that the Committee set this record straight for once. This assumption is also similar to the fear that they will succumb to temptation to be corrupt. Looking at them as humans, understanding the weaknesses of human weaknesses is half the battle won. There is no need to pretend that they are immortals and above the weaknesses of human beans. As humans they are subject to the same temptations of the flesh, of greed, of corruption, and the endless desires and wants.

This is what I mean when I say we need to protect the ministers as they are human beans too. Monday, Parliament is going to debate the salary recommendations of the Review Committee. And it is likely that they are going to vote for or against it. With 81 MPs and the Whip in force, the recommendations will be passed. This is bad. The recommendations are full of treacherous loopholes and traps that will compromise and bring down the good ministers.

I hope that they will be wise enough to look for a clean and simple package that will protect them from the temptations of man, of being human. I hope they will come out with a simple recommendation, a new recommendation that will remove all the loopholes and trappings that will lead the ministers to their downfall. It is unfair to design a system that is flawed and inviting the beneficiaries to think crooked. The new recommendations on the table are not much different from the current package, with many variables and flexibilities and loopholes for wrongdoings. If the ministers are put in a situation where they can be selective in what they are doing, say by doing this or that they could improve their bonuses etc, being human and weak, they could be lured into those erroneous paths.

There is no need to throw away the whole recommendations in toto. The recommendations have provided a decent framework as to how much the ministers can hope to get as their salary. Just compute them into simple numbers like $1.1m which is the base and $10m which is the maximum. With these two extremes, add a couple of options like $3m and $5m. Remove all the other variables and measurement criteria. Just put the four numbers to vote and let them be the salary of the ministers.

Once this is done, the ministers will be released from all the distraction of money, money will no longer be their daily preoccupation. An added precaution is that there shall be no other incomes by virtue of other appointments or duties. They can take on whatever duties or appointments if they so desired, but no more money, not even a token allowance. No more creative appointments as well. This will then be the simplest and cleanest and most transparent package for the ministers, and to protect them from themselves, to free them from temptations, and from thinking crooked. I want to say no crooked bridges as well, but that would be too complex to deal with.

May the main task of Parliament next week be towards a revised and simple salary package for the ministers. This is the best that everyone can hope for, for country, for the ministers and for the people. The police or uniformed personnel can do whatever to protect the ministers, but the most difficult task is for the ministers to protect from themselves. The people need to do their part to assist the ministers by proposing a simple compensation package that is free from mischief and temptation. This is a responsible thing to do. It is a simple task but very daunting. And it would need very brave and righteous ministers to agree with such a proposal. Just tell them it is for their own good and their own protection. Think they will understand the simple logic behind the proposal and assumption.

May God bless them and give them wisdom in this very difficult moment of their lives. Boon Wan is the best person to help to enlighten the rest of the ministers, to see light in times of darkness.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

The inconvenient truth

Monday is a big battle day in Parliament. 25 MPs will take to the floor to discuss the recommendations of the Ministerial Salary Review Committee headed by Gerard Ee.

The agenda has been set. They will be discussing about the recommendations for future salary for primarily political appointment holders. The salary for MPs is more or less accepted as reasonable and may at most received a cursory mention.

How meaningful and relevant will the discussion be will be affected by the presumptions that the MPs have in their mindset. Many are still clinging to the notion that political office is an employment and must come along with the whole gist of annual increments, bonuses, performance evaluation, etc as normal. There is also the assumption that political appointment is a great sacrifice, tangible and intangible, with monetary loss as the main factor. And the compensation package is always a discount from what the politicians are getting if they were to remain in the private sector.

The dichotomy between a political appointment and employment need no further discussion. They are completely two different animals. Not many countries can politicians take for granted that they will be elected elections after elections and can see it as a job with a big amount of certainty. Thus career development, and annual increment and bonuses become very important. When being elected is no longer a guarantee, all these factors may become superfluous and may not even be discussed, and they will turn to a different compensation package that is more relevant towards the uncertainties of political office.

The great sacrifice of monetary loss is only meaningful maybe to a handful of professionals. Maybe 80-90% of the politicians will not see any sacrifice at all. Many could be laughing all the way to the bank with their new political appointments with income they cannot even dream off in their whole life. So far there is no serious attempt to provide the statistics to show how many really took a pay cut and how many were quietly congratulating themselves with the windfall from entering politics.

And the subsidy or getting a discount from their peers in the private sector is another bull or myth that have been perpetuated for too long and will continue to be if no one stands up to challenge this myth. Where on earth can anyone earn $5m or $10m to shake hands with strangers, posed for photographs and looking good and wearing a perpetual smile? The latter is probably the most stressful of all the job requirements. Where on earth would one be paid a million bucks just to be a time keeper in Parliament which probably sits for less than 30 days in a year? There are many very well endowed positions that are paid handsomely that would not be tolerated in the private sector without the shareholders screaming foul.

Unless these assumptions are challenged, they will be taken for granted as truth and real, and will form the basis for the recommendation on how much the politicians shall be paid. And when that happens, the final results will be just as misleading and hazy as before.

While the agenda has been set to discuss about the future package, would the inconvenient truth of what and how much the political appointees really were paid under the existing package see the light?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Ministerial Salary - Day of reckoning

Monday 16 Jan 2011 could be the most significant day in the history of Singapore politics. It is a day when the grossly overpaid compensation package of the ministers, a world record that belittles all other records in the Guinness Book of Records, will be put under the microscope. It could be expected that every single dollar paid under the system will be questioned. But one thing for sure, the world record will stand at least for another 4 years.

What is important is that the ruling govt will have to defend its position and justifications for the high salary at a time when its credibility is under question. It is also a time when there are more than 2 opposition party MPs sitting on the opposition bench, and with everyone of them equally and professionally qualified, to challenge the crème de la crème of Singapore’s hard nose elite.

The whole bunch of PAP MPs will be closely watched on what they say, what they defend, what they stand for and their value system. This will be a day when the truth of what they represent will be hung up for all the people to see. How real are they will determine their fortune in the next GE if they are still around. Who knows, some may feel so embarrassed and may be pricked by their conscience to want to quit prematurely than to go through it till 2016.

What is of great concern is that the people will also be watching the opposition MPs closely. Will they measure up to the PAP? Are they meticulous and reasonable in their disagreement with the high salary recommendations? Are they good enough to form the base for a bigger opposition in the next GE and even to win the next election? They have a tough job and a heavy responsibility to prove to the electorate that they are worth their trust to represent them and are as good as the ruling party in intellect, and better morally, to be the next govt.

The media, mainly the professional reporters and journalists, have an arduous task of keeping the people informed of every pertinent things said by every MP in Parliament, to provide a clean, objective and unbiased account of the debate in Parliament. They too are being watched.

This is the Battle Royale the people are waiting for, with an equally sensitive and emotionally charged agenda on the table. But the people must accept that the battle is strongly against the opposition MPs in numbers. The only big gun they have is the conscience of PAP MPs and the power of the people who will be gunning for justice and equality and will not be forgiving if the PAP MPs proved to be a disappointment. They will be judged by the people, not by any KPI the PM handed to them at his discretion. It is the people’s KPI, the people’s expectation of what is a good MP and what the people want, not what the PM wants.

This is the real KPI that is under scrutiny, the KPI that counts, would not pay them more bonuses, but the electorate will reward them with another term, or they are fired.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Alvin Yeo makes good sense
Be realistic and compares apple with apple. Alvin Yeo brought out an interesting point, that the political leaders of UK and US came from wealthy background and could afford to take lower salary. He quoted a few British politicians with net worth of 4 or 5 million pounds with the Cameron’s waiting to inherit a 30m pound fortune. For those with 4m or 5m pounds, actually ‘sub sub suey’ compare to our politician’s wealth.
The American leaders are worth more, in the region of $100m or $200m. So they can afford to take in lesser salaries. This is an excellent point.
I do not know how wealthy are our ministers, but I think they are worth not less than the Brits and Americans, except for a few. Or they were not that rich before joining politics.
What is important is that if we want to attract the best, the rich or big income earners, we must go for it, get the really rich to serve. And the irony is that the really rich in the US and UK don’t need to be fed more to be fatter. Are our really rich the same as them, or they are different, that they need to be fatter cats? Even without taking the calculator or computer, one can easily conclude that the top 1000 high income earners would worth as much as the British and American leaders and should not be eyeing for more money.
The whole argument seems to go round and round. They are so rich, they need not be paid so much. And then we need to attract these very rich and need to pay them more? They would not be happy with less? Maybe as a non talent, I am unable to grasp the brilliance or logic in the argument. Really pai seh.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

The warcraft of parliamentarians
MPs elected to parliament quickly learn that parliament is not a kopitiam to sing song and talk cock. Parliament can be a treacherous place, like a war zone or battle field and requires special skills to survive the day. Maybe that is a reason why so many MPs chose to disappear during parliament sessions.
The democratic process of parliament is the culmination of a contentious way of pursuing political power between opposing parties. And that set the tone for debates in parliament, and also the behavior of parliamentarians. Once in parliament, it is me against them. There is no good idea or bad idea, it is our idea against your idea.
Every session in parliament is a battle. Anyone stands up must be prepared to be shot and then returns with counter offensive from supporting forces in the background. Some use small arms, some use snipers, some big guns and artilleries and air power. These are figuratively speaking of course.
The most effective or often used tactic against the enemy in parliament is the steely stare. Many have used them quite effectively. The way they manipulated their eyes to meet the enemy’s eyes, eye contact. To look straight into the enemy with big wide eyes or to squint the eyes to shape like a cutting blade of a knife, they all look very intimidating. It all ends up with the cold hard stare, in silence and measured in minutes.
Another effective way is to giggle or simply laugh the enemy away. This tactic is only effective if there is a superiority in number so that the laughter can be coordinated and the volume raised at the same time. Any MP speaking when everyone is giggling or laughing must be a frightening experience. He may even be made to have doubts on what he is saying to draw the giggling and laughters.
An alternative to this tactic, to dismiss an enemy MP, is to simply walk out, and this is even more effective when done in numbers. The psychologist will explain this as a kind of humiliating act, to humiliate the enemy, to make him question his own ability to make people listen.
The pedestrian style of picking at every wrong use of words or comments and raining blows at them may not be too effective after a while. Some comments in the media about new MPs jumping up like little frogs at on queue to attack the enemy’s viewpoint showed that this methodology is frown upon by the audience. It looks pretty childish, like school boys in a debate. Score points, score points. Damn clever like dat. Clap, clap, clap.
There are many tactics that were used, and one only needs to observe closely to detect them. The use of position power, authority, and the ‘I will fix you later’ body language are also quite common. The effectiveness of all these tactics basically boils down to power in numbers. Those without power and small in numbers will definitely be at the losing end. There is no way that one can use guerilla hit and run tactics inside the parliament house. There is no where to run and no where to hide.
What I thought would be a good weapon is to bring a tape recorder with tapes of laughters and giggling and play it out loud when the laughter offensive comes on. As for the cold hard steely stare, perhaps a big enough mirror may be able to deflect some of the venom. Or a wear a big pak kwa in the front chest could give an MP some cold comfort that a pak kwa has a defensive ability to ward off evil stares.
Parliament is a serious place and serious things are being discussed all the time. But there are interesting and humorous moments as well. And there are frightening moments too. Political parties must train their MPs in the art of war in parliament and armed them with offensive and defensive tactics before they step foot in parliament. And make sure they bring a tape recorder and some protective gear for their own protection. The naïve may thing good ideas is all they need to bring to parliament. As I said earlier, there is no good or bad idea in parliament. Only our idea or their idea.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Poor thing

"Minister of State Tan Chuan-Jin, choking over his words said: “I’m pained by the knowledge that I’ll miss the many moments when my children are growing up and time with my family. My parents are not getting any younger. Those moments missed do not return. Ever… In time I will look back and there will be gaps. But that’s life. I’m not sure how one considers it a privilege to miss these precious moments. It trivialises all of us who do cherish these.” Copied from CNA video/FeedmetotheFish commentary.
I am starting to feel very sorry for all these good men and women making their terrible sacrifices for the country and people. I am sad to hear this. We must not allowed such a painful state of affair to go on and do nothing about it. The Americans got the best answer to this and we should see if we can borrow their ideas so that our leaders do not have to make this kind of big sacrifices.
The Americans put Obama and his families in the White House, although in so doing they paid him a little lesser, but it is a good thing. Now Obama cannot claim that he is making a big sacrifice on his family life. He could work from his bedroom or his family could be playing next to his office. Now that is a humane way of looking after the welfare of their leaders.
We should send a petition to the govt to make such an arrangement so that our ministers need not have to suffer so much. This is all about inclusiveness, about taking care of our people. And ministers are people too. Poor thing.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Survivor kit for Parliament
Our parliament is still pretty tame compares to those in Taiwan or Japan or even India. But then again, it is always good to go fully prepared in case things get a bit rough. I have briefly listed down some items that MPs, particularly opposition MPs, should bring along as a survivor kit to Parliament. But before that, MPs must note that no firearms are allowed, not even firecrackers. No bottles containing liquid, no scissors or sharp objects.
Okay now for the list of survivor kit.
1. A comprehensive list of notes and research material on the subject in discussion. A dictionary will also be helpful, or an electronic translation machine in case they speak in another official language that one cannot understand. Important thing is to know the subject matter well even if it is a discussion on judgement call or an arbitrary recommendation. A slip can be fatal.
2. Related to the above, a mobile phone is essential and make sure that there are some well informed assistants waiting to assist on call, when one is cornered. Get them to sit beside a computer with access to Wikipedia and Wikileaks to pull out information asap to make a proper defence when under attack.
3. Tape recorders. I did mention this. I remember there is another gadget in the market that gives a loud and long laughter by simply pressing on it, and I think this can be a good substitute to pretend to laugh at the enemy. Those comedy clips in TVs use this very often and very effectively.
4. Mirrors or pak kwas to deflect hostile and evil stares. The pak kwas will boost once confidence against more superior enemy, psychologically or spiritually.
5. Protective body gears. Maybe not needed with the present friendly ethos of verbal debates. Hope our Parliament will never see the days of those in Japan and Taiwan.
6. Sleeping bag in case the speaker refuses to stop. Just a precaution. But probably not necessary as there is a time keeper to keep everyone to 15 mins, I think. An inflatable pillow will do as some speaker can be real boring, or if one had a late night.
7. A mask. I think this will be useful so that no one can recognize you outside of Parliament. Just in case. It would be helpful for those who needed to doze off for a few minutes as well.
8. I think a thick skin is also important so that one does not feel embarrass too easily for saying the wrong things. This one is hard to buy.
9. Acting skill is a great asset, to pretend to laugh or to be emotional and cry. Crying is very effective and used very frequently. A greater art is choking, the precise moment before breaking into tears. The pause, the veins popping out on the face, the voice breaking, a little trembling, will make be perfect to win the hearts of the audience. A show of passion and zeal. It will be a class act. Get some training from MediaCorp.
10. Oratory skill is a must. Debating skill will come in handy. The main aim is to win an argument. Pick up the little mistakes the enemy makes and bite into it, don’t let go. Keep chewing on it to make it hurt. Use a bit of body language to bolster the effect.
11. As physical fighting skill is not permissible, a steely stare can be very effective to kill the enemy or make him urinate in his pants. There is a whole art to this skill, penetrating, timing and how to squint the eyes to increase the damage.
12. Make use of technology like videos and put it on the net for the public to see, over and over again, on how good one’s debating skill is and how bad is the enemy. If this can be put on air in the main stream media the viewership will be bigger and the effect multiplied. But a word of caution. Do not over kill or it may backfire. A video clip of real combat serves to improve one’s position and to destroy the credibility of the enemy when one is on the upper hand.
13. Not to forget, Vitamin B Complex to stare calm and compose and not getting too stress up. Relax and enjoy the session. Don’t be too serious. A cool mind can think better and not to get carried away and comes out looking like a gangster in Parliament.

The above list is not exhaustive. Political parties often have their own secret moves, recipes and tactics to defeat the enemy. It will be good if political parties have the resources to send their MPs overseas to learn from them, learn new and untested tactics to surprise the enemy.

Attending Parliament is not attending a tea party and there are risks and hazards. If one can find an excuse, it is better not to attend. Apply for leave to attend company business and overseas trips will be a better excuse. Board meetings may also be important enough for not attending Parliament sessions. Correct me if I am wrong. I have never been to Parliament so my knowledge on the intricacies of Parliament is just guessing, an educated guess at most.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Govt can do more…
Front page news of Today paper is about building an inclusive society and the message is that the Govt can do more. At a glance this should be the case but really, when the Govt is going to do more is really a frightening proposition. The problem of this country is that the Govt is doing too much, to do everything for the people, even to keep their CPF money and when or how many children to have. The Govt is doing too much and this messing around with the people’s money and life is the main cause of many social problems.
What the Govt should do is to do less. Please, do not help the people when it is not necessary. Leave the people alone to live and manage their own lives. There are many things that the Govt can do to help the people without having to do anything. Imagine some kids in Parliament telling the whole population how to make people, how to be good?
One major curse of the Govt is how it is trying to manage and control the people’s hard earned savings in the CPF as if they belong to the Govt. For goodness sake, lay off, and return the money to their rightful owners. A stronger word would be ‘fuck off’. Leave the people’s money alone! So much saving and still not enough for retirement! Why? Why?
The next major concern of the people is the influx of foreigners that the Govt claimed is good for the people when the people are getting really pissed off, getting hurt. Why is something that the Govt claimed is so good is seen to be so bad by the people? Maybe the Govt is only thinking economic and money while the people are thinking social, our society, the way of life, how they want their country to be. The people must have the final say as to what the country should be and not a few individuals who are just as human and would not be in Govt forever. The country belongs to the people, not to a few individual who want to decide what they think is good for the people without consulting the people. Ask the people, consult the people. No need to?
The Govt can do less and allow the real market forces to determine housing demand and supply without controlling the supply and increasing the demand unnaturally.
The Govt can do less with the taxpayer’s money by not giving it to foreigners that have nothing to do with us. Do just a little or better, don’t do anything in this regard. Give the money to the children of the taxpayers that are more deserving.
The Govt can do less by allowing the people and country to develop naturally towards a freer and more inclusive society.
The Govt can do less in limiting the supply of professionals, especially medical so that the market forces can work to lower the cost of medical services.
The Govt can also do less in not raising the GST to help the poor. No, no need, the poor don’t need this kind of help.
There are many things that the Govt can do less and end up helping the people more. Property enhancement to inflate property prices is a double edged sword and one profits from another. What is really bad is for foreigners to profit from the citizens. This is detrimental to the well being of our own people.
The Govt can also issue less licences to foreigners, including PRs for small businesses that the locals can do without having to compete with mercenaries who have no stake in this country.
My call to the Govt is to do less in areas that the people can look after themselves. Please, don’t. The daft Sinkies are really not that daft that some leaders make them out to be. A second upper foreign scholar is not better than a second upper local scholar. Not deserving of scholarship based on merit.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.