Click the words ABOVE (NOT below..) to get around !!!
ABOUT {what i've}
LINKS {been looking for}
TAG {all this time}
bold italic underline link
I think I am getting to know way too many people that make me go "god, I hope I am not like you".
And then hope I never will be.
After the elections, I was kinda bothered that a certain white party was still ruling my area.
But I had no major complaints about how things have turned out around here and in fact, I love staying here.
And besides the fact that I have NEVER ever met my MP since moving here in 1998 (true, I am not at home most of the time, but hey, most people aren't either right?) and that the closest I ever got to meeting her was having some lousy adv hanging on my door saying I missed my MP on her visit (which I think is bullsh*t cause I was at home the whole time and therefore, the adv wasn't even hunged by her), I don't really have anything against her per se.
I guess I belong to the lucky group of people that can pretty much get by without the help of an MP (I paused for a long moment there trying to think of something I needed my MP for and couldn't really think of any). Sure, she is my "voice in parliament" but how can someone be my voice if she never even met me before. *shrugs*
Anyhows, I saw alot of her adv and flyers portraying the work she has done in this area, the usual visiting old people, implementing volunteer programmes etc but hey, I for one know how far smoking can take a person. Even the smallest of achievement with the right words and pictures can look pretty impressive.
And I read a FB post sometime back (and can't find it now) which was questioning why we equate an MP who visits old people and implements volunteer programmes as a good MP? Cause besides the fact that all these seems like "nice things" to do and usually normal citizens do it in their free time as actual volunteer work, MPs are in fact doing it as part of their job. Sure, it is probably not cast in stone as something they HAVE to do, but serving the people is most likely somewhere in their job scope and it pretty much encompasses such activities.
So I realised I was feeling pretty ok about my MP cause she was doing her job. -.- How low a benchmark is that?
And then I saw this article.
Apparently, my MP was complaining:
"I started my MPS on May 9, two days after being elected as MP. Had a big crowd. Hardly any rest. No big media publicity. An opposition party starting their MPS just yesterday. If that had happened in a PAP branch, imagine the flak...But I am not complaining. We serve quietly and hope residents will judge us by our actions, and not just our words."
Ironic isn't it. Firstly, if she is really so keen on serving quietly, why is complaining on a social media? And this just reflects the mentality of the person who is representing my voice - immature and petty. Is the media supposed to cover EVERY single MPS in Spore?
Then I guess someone called her "irksome" (refer to above article) and she whined again about how she was just making a point about working quietly. Her tone obviously conveyed her displeasure and as a politician, I believe no matter the shit that gets thrown at you (even in social media, since she willing joined), you should still be politically correct. Behaving otherwise just reflects poorly on yourself.
Then an affliated FB account quoted her on her wall:
"We serve quietly and hope residents will judge us by our actions, and not just our words."
WHOA. Sound so damn impressive right? Quoted right out of context to make her sound all sagely and wise.
And speaking of quoting out of context, another boo boo by our men(and women) in white.
This MP claimed his (IMHO, retarded) comment about ministers' pay was quoted out of context.
"If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister’s ideas and proposals, hence a reasonable payout will help to maintain abit of dignity."
He wrote a long reply about how this was quoted of out context by saying just that. No evidence of how it was out of context and not even a link to the actual context.
Then someone replied with the actual article . Even though my chinese CMI, I still managed to understand the article and no matter how hard I tried, I don't see any other context. The article is in chinese but I don't see any problem with the translation. I can't be half assed bothered to read to the second page, but unlike the above quotation from my MP which is definitely out the context, this one is quoted in its entirety. The entire quotation is a paragraph, not any shorter nor longer.
I seriously wish my MPs would stop using social media and embarass themselves. It's really painful to watch.
After staying up till near 3am yesterday, I saw history in the making.
I had a fear PAP would end up winning everything with the leaving of heavyweights from Potong Pasir and Hougang.
But I am glad Aljunied was taken by WP.
And even though they lost, Potong Pasir and Joo Chiat only lost VERY marginally.
And that the winning margins of PAP were lower compared to those from the previous election.
And re-reading XX's post about Aljunied which I was too lazy to yesterday, my only rebuttal would be that her precious PAP, which introduced the GRC system to allow screw ups lik TPL to become our MPs, has karma bit them back in their arse and lost their capable foreign minister.
And I am glad the results from yesterday spoke more loudly and significantly than anything I could have written about XX.
((:
Gotta write all these before the GE is over.
Then it'll be outdated.
Heard more ridiculous PAP quotes over the past few days.
PM Lee on why he apologised "...the politics of it and also the emotion connection which is very important between the government and the people".
This just makes it sound like he apologised cause that's what he thinks the people want to hear.
Vivian on YOG: his final budget didn't burst. It was due to his initial estimation being wrong. And he stated that he did seek a second approval from PM. PM even asked if he would have bidded for the YOG would his initial estimation been so much higher.
Weirdly, though the clear inference on the answer to PM's question is "yes", the report (on radio) did not clearly mention Vivian's reply.
No matter what this reply is, what is the point of this statement? That PM gave a second approval? Why wouldn't he? Singapore has already WON the bid. HOW IN THE WORLD will we turn around and say "hey, sorry but we got the numbers wrong, why don't you pass it to another country instead?"
Come on. Of course PM will approve anything once the bid is ours. -.-
And how is saying the initial estimation is WRONG better than admitting to bursting the budget? We pay our precious leaders millions to get the best and he gets the budget wrong by 300%?
Faints.
Vivian's response to the raised parliament request of helping out the needy more - "Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?"
Hello? We pay you more than $125,000 a month, you want to justify it by saying it prevents you from being corrupted, by being getting initial estimates wrong or by blaming people for being gay?
Randomly, on the topics of salaries, I realised if we tag PM's pay to Obama and then assume ministers' and MPs' pay maintain the current percentage of PM's pay, we will save about $40,000,000 annually. :O
Just the other day, I was wondering if Xiaxue will blog about GE. Was curious about her take on all this hoo haa. Afterall, her view of some stuff are kinda hilarious. But when she did, I can't help feeling disappointed.
She is pro PAP, pro LKY ALL THE WAY. She probably singlehandedly raised the number of "Likes" LKY has on FB over and above Nicole Seah's in a couple of hours.
At the risk of just hating her for the sake of hating her, I shall TRY to jusitfy my feelings and prove I am not one of those overly emotion, supporting opposition just for the sake of supporting opposition people.
It's probably impossible to do a rational, complete cost benefit analysis of everything PAP and the opposition did, is doing, said, is saying etc. Everyone can interpret anything they want according to how they want and we can probably argue till the end of days.
So I shall just try to focus on what XX is saying. And if it's justified. (Anything in "" below are quoted from XX's blog)
1) Her post on LKY's vs NS's popularity on FB
Firstly, as someone noted on FB, it's ridiculous to get so caught up in this issue. Hello? FB likes won't necessarily translate into votes. LKY isn't going to get all emotional cause he's not liked on a social media where youngsters religiously post everything about their lives and which shares retarded (but funny) videos. XX complained people are ridiculous for liking NS on FB.. She's being ridiculous for caring about FB likes at all.
It's a social media where people have fun. Get over it.
"No matter what a shitty job the PAP is doing now, it remains that a lot of their members have dedicated a big part of their lives to building everything we have today."
Oh, so past acheivements justify present incompetence? Hey, I was in the special stream after my PSLE results, why not let me get into the Faculty of Medicine at university without a need for O and A levels results? Afterall, no matter what a shitty score I got at A levels, it remains that I dedicated a full SIX years to achieving my PSLE scores ok?
"It is thanks to them that we are the number 1 most uncorrupted country in the WORLD. We have absurd safety around the island. Our children are all ensured, at the very least, some education. "
We are the number 1 most uncorrupted country in the world because, in case you haven heard, we pay our leaders one of the highest in the WORLD. I wrote about it in a post a while back. Enough said.
Yes, I am grateful for our safety. I am glad I can go home at 2am in the morning and not fear for my life. No doubt certain polices played their role in this safety, but Singapore is small. I assume this means that it's relatively easier to control than many other countries.
And see what happens when Mas Selamat escaped. We COULDN'T find him. Our safety in this country has breed a sense of complacency and what we have taken for granted may not always be around. I am grateful we are safe now, but I hope and wish that this safety will always be around.
But XX is clearly confusing what was with what will be. She is doing what PAP loves to do. Boasting about track records. But track records, like CVs, tend to gloss over the negatives and glam up the positives. Yes, it is a good gauge of capability but surely it can't be the only benchmark.
This rest of her post talked about how much LKY has done for Singapore.
And I agree.
I respect his vision to ensure Singaporeans can speak decent English. I heard him speak at NUS KRMF forum and there is no doubt he is a very capable, sharp and brilliant man.
So ultimately I am slightly confused as to the aim of her post.
To justify why LKY should have more likes than NS?
Granted he does, but it's really a frivolous issue.
To criticise people's ungratefulness?
I don't think people are ungrateful per se. Does being grateful mean having to avoid giving criticisms? (Granted these criticisms would have to be justified).
Using past achievements to justify supporting the PAP?
Only touched briefly in this post. And as I have said above, clearly confusing what was with what will be.
So, to conclude her first post - the lack of focus shows she is just as carried away by emotions as the very people she is complaining about.
And this brings us to her next post which she explains her support for the PAP.
Her take on 1) Everybody's ANGRY
"Watching the rallies of the opposition really annoys me. Hearing people cheer as the PAP are being blamed from the flash floods to Mas Selamat to housing prices to foreign talents in Singapore..."
Having been to 2 rallies, the people cheering and shouting may be loud, but they are not the majority. And that's what the rallies are for anyway. You mean when PAP slams the opposition, people don't cheer?
So if XX is against people cheering, then it's just ridiculous. Once again, cheering don't translate into votes.
If she is against people being angry about flash floods, Mas Selamat, housing prices and foreign talents, why can't people be?
Her justifications:
"Suddenly it's not your own fault that driving a taxi is not enough to feed your 6 children. It is the PAP's. What an awesome liberating feeling! Yeah PAP ask you to keep fucking without contraception so it is their responsibility to give you welfare!"
Just a random example written for the sake of gaining "cheers" from her online followers. Nothing whatsoever relevant to complaints about floods, Mas Selamat, housing prices and foreign talents.
"People always yakking about how PAP doesn't help the poor... Nicole Seah even said her stupid inspiration for dabbling in politics is because she saw an old lady with a roof over her head but no food...
(cont'd) EXCUSE ME? THE ROOF FLY TO ABOVE HER HEAD BY ITSELF AH? Must give her roof must provide food everyday... Must help her wipe her ass or not?
(cont'd) I'm not saying we shouldn't help the poor. We should. But everything needs to be in balance. To say that the rich and able should constantly be giving to the poor, needy or lazy is a childish idealistic notion that simply won't work. We must simply accept that some people suffer in life - we can try to limit it, but we cannot eradicate it."
Her last paragraph just contradicts her argument. She claims there needs to be a balance. Is anyone saying otherwise? People are saying more help is needed precisely because there isn't balance.
"People like to hear things like TAX THE RICH LAH! REDUCE MINISTER'S PAY! WHY SHOULD THEY EARN SO MUCH WHILE WE ARE SUFFERING?
(cont'd) Excuse me? WHY? Who is stopping you from being a hardworking student, getting a scholarship, and becoming minister yourself? Who is stopping you from setting up your own business after saving up money from doing several jobs? YOU THINK ALL THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T WORK HARD?
(cont'd) You want to blame, you blame yourself. Don't think just because you are faring worse than others everyone else has to contribute to a better livelihood for you? FUCK THAT. You know what is COMMUNISM not?"
Her second paragraph tries to justify ministers' high pay because... they work hard? And therefore people should too? I don't see how those 2 points are linked but I shall try to make sense of it. Noone said they shouldn't earn money for working hard. But why are they earning THAT much? (Again, this issue is already covered in a previous post).
So if anything about lowering the cost of living directly translate into communism, then why not eliminate public housing. True capitalist state!
"You want cheapo HDB flats... Singapore's land is so limited, HOW CHEAP YOU WANT? You think what? HDB grow like mushroom? All you need is soil, sunshine, water and some love? NO LEH A LOT OF BANGALA NEEDED TO BUILD THEM!"
She assumed the flats are as cheap as they can get. But apparently PAP refuse to release the cost breakdown of these flats which hints that they have something to hide.
And again she's trying to make 2 points at the same time and confusing people.
If housing is expensive because we need alot of labour to build them, then fine, release the cost breakdown.
If her point is being that housing SHOULD be expensive as it is now because Singapore has a lack of space, it goes against the very basis of public housing.
She's assuming more expensive housing means fewer people will buy houses, thereby solving the space constraints. Hello? Public housing isn't a luxury good. People need it. If Singapore has a lack of iPads and the price is jacked up so only the rich can get it? Fine. But like it or not, people need to live somewhere. Jacking up the prices only makes it more difficult. And if the high prices are to prevent people from buying houses for the sake of investment, surely there are other methods than using price as a restriction.
"I'm not rich myself ok? Mike and I barely have enough to pay the downpayment for a HDB. But I don't expect the government to give me money or lower the prices leh... Why should they? I refuse to take any blogshop ads. I lazy to blog more. I can't be bothered to source out more advertisers. I spend my money on shoes and bags. SO LIKE THAT LAH! Either be contented or blame yourself!"
Unlike her, some people are poor not because they are lazy. She is assuming people are lazy like her and blaming the government for it.
She then goes on to rant about how bad change is. Yadda yadda. Cause...
"Change from what to what? If our bar is at "GOOD" now, you want to change it to "EXCELLENT"? You think opposition can do it? What if they change from "GOOD" to "FUCKED"? There is no perfect system. "GOOD" is good enough for me."
What ifs... what ifs... BUT what if it really does change for the better? There may be no perfect system. But is good the highest we can reach for?
After this whole chunk, she adds a disclaimer:
"p/s: For the above I'm addressing people who are 100% against PAP, not those who just wish to have some opposition voices in the government."
Ironically, this is definitely not apparent in the way she has been writing so far.
Her take on 2) Marine Parade GRC
She insist people should "compare strongest to strongest, weakest to weakest lah!"
Then goes on to compare NS to GCK.
Erm NS may be the most vocal but what about the head of the team Cheo Chai Chen?
Education: graduate of Nanyang University’s Department of Government and Public Administration
Experience: first participated in politics in 1988 with the Singapore Democratic Party. In 1991, he was elected to Parliament as the Member of Parliament for Nee Soon Central SMC and became the Chairman of the constituency’s Town Council. Joined the National Solidarity Party in 2006, and now a member of the Central Executive Committee.
Maybe still not as impressive as GCK, but yes, "Wanna compare must compare to the right person ok?"
I shall not contest her point on Aljunied cause I don't know the complete picture to make a judgement. And I am getting tired.
But 2/3 of her points are invalid at this point in time.
And her ending note: "I'm not trying to tell you who to vote for. Ok I kinda am. But I fear a bleak future for our nation should the PAP topple. And don't say it won't! My god the day we have a coalition government our country will go to the dogs."
If PAP's future lies in people the likes of TPL, even if they remain in power, I fear the topple is only a matter of time.
I got so many things to blog about I better shall separate it into different posts.
Went for Thriller Live yesterday.
After the concert, I had a strong urge to watch MJ videos on youtube on repeat.
After the concert, I am convinced MJ is irreplacable.
After the concert, I kinda felt my money could have been better spent :X
Instead of staying true to MJ, the "tribute" incorporated random breakdances and street wear which just... makes it black I guess. At the risk of sounding racist, it's really the best way to describe it.
I mean, THRILLER performed with backup dancers wearing basketball shirts and shorts? Looking punkish? HELLO? Zombies not so hip can?
There were about 4-5 MJ.
One was just abit too plump to be convincing. It just feels weird to watch someone perform MJ's moves but yet not quite getting it cause well, there was a bit too much meat around. I don't mean to be size-ist, but hey, facts are facts. If actors can loose a whole pile of weight for their roles, I am sure the dancer can do his part? I don't know. Just my opinion. And he's bald some of the times. I mean. BALD? MJ HAD HAIR. And there were parts where the MJs had wigs. Those sphere shaped wigs for the Jackson 5 era. So much hair. So why can't you have wigs throughout? So half hearted. Bald MJ. Seriously.
Another was white enough (to be MJ in the later years), tall enough and skinny enough. And his techniques are correct. But... that's it. He's doing it, but not feeling it.
I guess that kinda sums up the entire performance. It comes across as a show with a severe lack of heart. Everytime they attempt to pull off MJ moves like the famous moonwalk and the 45 degree thingy, instead of being impressed, I can't help but think "please pull this off". I severely was worried it couldn't be done.
Wonder if its just me.
Sadly, overall, it felt like more like a school play than a world class act.
Sadly, after the show, instead of being thrilled to watch MJ come back to life, I just felt mildly depressed that there will never be someone as amazing as him again.
So,
kinda belated.
But I just completed my last exam of my education life on Thu.
Unless I want to, I probably do not have to take another school exam again.
Ever.
The paper didn't feel any different from any other papers I have taken.
I couldn't wait for it to come,
just so I could get it over and done with.
Just like every other last paper I've taken every sem, every year.
Maybe it's the impending FYP that makes it kinda...
like a half hearted ending.
Maybe I'll feel better after Mon.
Then again, there is the final report due in June.
Gah.
Never ending pain in the arse.
But anyhow,
with the end of my uni life,
comes the beginning of my voting life.
I hope change comes.
Seal - Change is Gonna Come
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHa096VQ8FE
Unbelievable.
I mean, biasedness in the newspaper and media is bound to occur.
Nothing is ever black and white.
But reporting a false story? If not for all the hoo haa going on the cybernet, I would have believed my mom when she told me this morning that Dr Chee from SDP tried to start a protest and create instability among his party.
But I guess the time where people could get away with blatant lies are far gone.
Brief overview of what happened:
http://kirstenhan.me/2011/05/02/wah-lau-tnp-buay-pai-seh-ah/
And when one of the writers got terribly slammed on her FB page for her article, all she could manage was these feeble replies.
First reply:
"We stand by our piece, thanks."
Second reply:
"if it turns out that I'm right, and that all of you have maligned me and my co-author, do we get an apology instead?"
Third reply:
"I will not justify my article as yet. but I won't be un-accountable, so please be patient. in the meantime, if you guys are referring to this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ1-qjNieiY - it was taken on 30 april. the rally in question we're talking about in the story was that which happened at Jurong East stadium, on 29 april."
(These are ACCURATE QUOTES and not fabrications. I probably have more reporting ethics here than her entire article. Ok couldn't resist rubbing it in.)
Her first reply is just... I don't even know what that is. A kid going "why don't you believe me? I am correct!"
Her second reply was probably to buy time. Lest people ask why isn't she replying. Which is just kinda dumb. By replying and not giving a proper reply, that is just making it look like you don't have a reply.
Why "if it turns out"? The event in question has long passed, it is not a weather prediction, not something anyone is waiting to "turn out". So I can only guess that what we are supposed to be waiting for is you looking for your evidence and proofs to back your article (if any).
Her third and (so far) final reply came an hour after the first. She asks us to be patient. So apparently, she still can't find her proofs. Must be a hell of a workdesk.
And "I will not justify my article as yet". Why not? Waiting to make a public statement?
For her sake, she better have proof. And fast.
Update:
Fourth (and latest) reply:
"spoke to some SDP people today - they were all very nice and said they were not enraged by our story. it's ironic that netizens are the ones reacting."
Wow. So false stories are alright just because the people in question are not enraged? If they were enraged, they will just give you more rubbish to write about isn't it. By her logic, I should just piss off nice, even tempered people from now on. Cause... well... you know, they don't get enraged and stuff.
*rolls eyes*
This morning, I was reminded of yet another noteworthy point PAP made some time ago.
It was probably reiterated recently with all the backlash and slamming of their high paying salaries.
PAP's justification - to attract the best, we have to pay salaries which are compatible with the private sector. This makes us competitive etc etc.
When I first heard it, I didn't give all that much thought to it.
I've heard so much propaganda over the years that I have already lose the ability to really hear what is being said.
But just spare a few seconds to think this statement over, and it doesn't make the slightest sense at all.
I cannot deny the temptation of money and the motivation it gives people to do certain things or behave in certain ways.
But to say that high salaries will attract the best is based on the assumption that the best are motivated PURELY by high salaries.
If a highly capable CEO claims to be TRULY sincere about serving the people and then goes "hey, if you don't pay me as much as my current job does, I am not going over to join you" then I seriously doubt his true intentions.
PAP should just take a minute to think. Noone is saying that the goverment should operate like a non-profit organisation. Noone is going to deny that government officials should be paid a salary. And even if it higher than the ordinary office worker, I am not going to deny that they don't deserve it. But studies have shown that their salaries is not simply competitive, the ratio of our political leaders' pay to GDP Per Capita for 2010 is actually ranked SECOND in the WORLD.
How's that for competitiveness. Since we are SO DAMN competitive, why aren't we attracting the very best into politics? Why is there new blood being introduced with a calibre not that significantly superior to any average undergrad I can find at my university?
I think there was even a vague reference to how high salaries will have the effect of preventing corruption in our system. Oh, so now we are incorporating the money potentially earned from corruption into our salaries? Why not double my salary in the future so I won't steal some paper from our company's printer.
I am pretty sure the quality of a person's life is not going to be significantly diminished just because they are going to be paid $20,000 a month instead of their precious $100,000.
And I am pretty damn sure that extremely capable people attracted by our extremely competitive salaries wouldn't be people that can lose both a limping fugitive from a toilet and then proceed to burst the budget on an event I barely noticed
by more than 3 times. The initial budget was $108,000,000 so imagine what 3 times would mean. Sure, every cent MAY have been justified, but then who came up with the initial budget to begin with? If the initial decision made to take up the YOG based on the budget of $108,000,000, how can the new budget be justified?
Capable indeed.
And what's worse about all these?
These capable people are so convinced of their capabilities that they don't even see what is wrong. I would paste links here supporting this but apparently temasek review articles are blocked from singtel users.
But the article titles reads:
Wong Kan Seng: 'Myopic' to focus on escape of Mas Selamat
Dr Vivian “unapologetic” about bursting YOG budget by more than three times
OMG.
Words fail me.
Shouldn't a capable leader who is sincere about serving his people welcome change instead of fighting to maintain a group of followers who are just mindless replicas of himself?
A truly selfless leader should only seek to maintain his rule insofar as it proves to be the best for whom he is serving. Otherwise, any attempts to maintain power are purely for selfish reasons.
I guess politics will always be a selfish game.
I most certainly do not see myself as a wonderfully self informed person capable of making critical judgements and comments on what is going on in the political scene right now.
I have often thought of myself as being a rather politically apathetic person.
Maybe it's because without any choices, people assume apathetic-ness.
Afterall, getting too caught up in something which seems unlikely to change could be a troubling way to live.
(On the other hand, being apathetic could very well feed the cycle of nothing being changed and therefore remaining apathetic... yadda yadda)
But with the election drawing close, we are forced to make a stand.
Apathetic or not, I have to vote.
And only a few weeks back, I admit that I had no idea who to vote for and yet it didn't bother me all that much.
I've come to accept the fact that with or without me (since I've never voted before), life goes on.
Since I've always lived in an area where PAP was and is in power, I don't know of a life where this has not been the case.
I've come to accept a lot of things going around me like GST hikes, ERP hikes, housing hikes, car ownership hikes as facts that would occur, whether we like it or not, whether PAP is in power or not.
But I have since then heard a lot from the opposition parties.
Thanks to facebook and enthusiastic friends, I have heard a lot of slamming of PAP. Internet noise and bias-ness aside, it reminds me that the life I know of may not be the only life out there.
There is no guarantee that the opposition will do better, or that the PAP will do any worse, but is change really so bad?
Over the past few years, I've been overseas more than a couple times, and somehow, it has made me appreciate Singapore and indirectly, the government more.
I've even became quite convinced that PAP wasn't as bad as certain people made them out to be.
At some point in time, I could have even be a PAP supporter.
But this image (illusion maybe) seem to be fading these days.
Talk may be cheap but talk is often all we have to judge certain things and based our decisions upon.
Over the past few days, I have heard some really good opposition speeches, some not so good ones but unlike the PAP, nothing they have said have irked me.
The things PAP have been saying are splashed over the local news and the papers, both of which I believe would not have any intentions of portraying them in a bad light.
Which means whatever that are being published are most likely things PAP want the people to hear and NOT slips of the tongue.
And yet the things I am hearing baffles me.
Surely any rational being could see through the threats and often nonsensical analogies?
Analogy of the country being a car and the goverment as the driver? And PAP's claim that having 2 drivers is dangerous and inefficient since drivers going in 2 directions will translate to slower decisions being made etc etc.
Isn't this as good as saying that things should be done in one and only one way? PAP's way? In what universe is having more than ONE school of thougth, more than ONE opinion a bad thing? Back to the car analogy, what if the ONE driver is a reckless one?
And the threats to Aljunied voters that they WILL regret their decision should WP come in power? And all those age old threats on delays in upgrading and developments should opposition come into power.
Using one of the retorts from the opposition, whose money is the PAP using? Why should certain people be made a lower priority when they are paying and contributing the same amount as the rest of the population? Certain amounts may be subsidised from the parties but doesn't this money eventually trace back to the people? And anyway, why does the party have so much reserves to threaten the people with?
And even if these accumulations of reserves are justified, why the threats? Why threats instead of promises?
All through my school life where I have seen people running for clubs and societies, for representations in schools and competitions, never have I ever seen people use threats as a tool to garner support.
Maybe the generation has changed. Haven't people heard that the youths of today are rebellious and possibly difficult to control or fit conventional norms?
Threats don't make us back down.
They could very well wake us up from the political slumber we have been taking for so long.
As of right now, either parties in my GRC has yet to convince me why I should vote for them.
But one side is definitely set on giving me more and more reasons why my vote should not go to them.
Even with nothing being done, every supporter one side loses is a gain to the other.
I wonder when PAP will realise that.
Update: after reading numerous notes and links online, with many solid analyses and number crunchings, I am thoroughly convinced I am not as critical as I could and should be. And I am sure there are many others like me out there. But I guess my general stand still remains - it is difficult to judge capabilities based solely on words and over such a short period of time. And I believe attitudes largely determine success and a party which resorts to threats only portray a lack of confidence and the inherent tendency to undermine the very people they claim to be serving.
I believe formulating policies is something which can be learned and improved upon.
But attitudes and behaviours? They tend to stick around.
And funny thing is, why are citizens making these analysis and rebuttals for the political parties which seem so incapable of doing so themselves?
A well written piece of work about the whole Tin Tin hoo haa right now:
http://veryfinecommentary.tk/articles/tin-pei-ling-new-blood-bad-blood/
One comment at the end of article got me thinking.
"The most glaring aspect about her was her sheer immaturity for a 27-year-old".
It's kinda linked to something I wrote sometime back about education and stuff but never really finished it cause it never really turned out the way I wanted it and therefore, it was never published. -.-
I guess, at that point in time, I couldn't really find what I wanted to say either.
And now that comment helped to shape what I really wanted to say.
That after going through 2 decades of education and meeting weirder and weirder people along the way, I think I realised what is bothering me. People are becoming weirder to me only because our views have become increasingly divergent. Not to put myself on a pedetral, but some people are perhaps as immature and self centered now as they were 5, maybe 10 years ago. And maybe back then, it was alright to be immature and self centred. But as some move on, some have stayed exactly where they were.
Maybe I'm the one who's weird. I'm the one who have changed too much. Or maybe I've never even changed at all.
My expectation that people should change (and for the better) over time could very well be the cause of my decreasing tolerance towards people around me.
I'm irritated when people make insensitive comments.
I'm irritated when people go on and on about things that they can't change, or things they can but they won't.
Cause I believe these are things a person of a certain age should not be doing.
So back to Tin Tin.
Yes, she is only 27.
But she is running to represent not just a school or a CCA anymore. She is running to represent us, Singaporeans. And at that age, even if she did not have the capability, it is not something to criticised about since no everyone is made for politics. But I would at least expect her to know her capabilities.
There are people I've met in Uni who've constantly amazed me with their thinking and capabilities and therefore, I am pretty sure age is not an issue.
But like many other people I've met in Uni, Tin Tin is just plain clueless. And clueless people are the worst. In the near future, they are likely to remain where they are now, simply because they do not have a clue that they need to change. Cluelessness comes with immaturity and what antagonises me is that education cannot change that.
Only the stuff that life puts you through can. And Tin Tin doesn't sound like she has gone through much to become the person that Singaporeans need her to be.
But then again, she is a rather good representation of the (unfortunately large) population of clueless people around today. I've once said to someone, that Tin Tin is the typical arts student I would have expected to meet anyday. But who wants to be represented by the typical?
I think I really should put more time into writing which makes me think coherently.
