Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Friday, November 19, 2010
Monday, August 17, 2009
Elections Coming?
The annual National Day Rally by the Prime Minister last night was a nicely veiled work review of the tasks his cabinet and members of parliament have been given and a report of the updates and achievements. As I sit through the entire speech, the signs of an upcoming elections are obvious. The Prime Minister is not different from a director making an annual update to his upper management the jobs he has assigned to his deputies and folks. Time to give me a promotion. Or for that matter, time to return me to office one more time. Otherwise, why would anyone have to do that at a NDR?
The usual slew of topics - bitching about Singaporeans not giving birth and announcing bonuses - is absent. Of course, what my government and I cannot achieve, we pay less attention to it. Let's showcase our successes instead. So, there were takes on issues such as religious tolerance, the AH1N1, Singapore past and now and possibly the future, and infrastructural updates. PM highlighted the work of all the ministries and gave them kudos.
Of course, in a speech like this, there were no lacking in certain understated but not to be missed moments.
PM Lee envision Singapore to be a Garden of Eden state. If I am not wrong, God owned the Garden of Eden. Enough said.
PM Lee said that people should be inclusive enough so that it is possible for people of different faiths to have a meal at the same table. Even if you don't eat what I eat, it is still possible to share a table. As yourself how many times certain meals must be from a particular religion and every one is forced to eat that, regardless? If there is inclusiveness, then let me eat what I want. In fact, I have asked my neighbour if he minded food that are free of his religious taboos but is cooked in my kitchen. His answer was yes, he minded. So there. Again, enough said.
PM spoke of how a clash between a funeral and a wedding took place. The wedding folks eventually acquiesced and chose an alternative, nearby venue and the town council waived utility charges. Er... I'm pretty sure if the dead person could walk, s/he might want to change a venue to save on charges too? Why not be fair and waive both charges?
PM spoke of the importance of the government to remain secular and the NGOs be that way too so that no one religious group can use such platforms to spread any of their (fanatic) agenda. He also wanted common space to exist. If that is the case, then why is Section 377A still in existence. The government and the laws should be above the religion! Anyone running afoul of Section 377A is a violation of "contract" between the person and the government; what have strong religious sentiment got to do with it? Why even use groups of fervent opposers as an excuse not to overturn the outdated law?
PM spoke of how the picture depicting the NS man (in the Mount Faber SAFRA) is appropriate - his wife is behind him and his kids beside. And how many NS men aren't married, can't even keep a wife, are divorced, don't want the kids they have, have a broken family etc? The rosy pictures are always nice. But show how it really is for the real NS man out there. Do you actually see us struggling with our IPPT? Do you actually see us losing out because of our ICT? Do you even see us?
PM spoke of how the PAP government brought the people out of slums and squatters. The audience laughed when PM spoke about Lim Kim San's visit to Chinatown where he faced a man lying in bed wrapped up in his blanket who claimed that he was being courteous to Mr Lim: his bunk mate and him shared a pair of trousers (gay??) and his mate has worn those trousers out to work then. What's with the laughter? What is so funny? Have we really moved out of poverty? If it were funny sharing trousers in the 1950s, then why is it not funny not having enough money to pay utility bills, pay children's school fees, pay town council charges, or even buy food for a proper meal? Haven't these people who should live with a d*mned paper bag over their heads for living beyond their means have even more to laugh about? Yet, why are they queueing up for handouts? Did they really live beyond their means or have they really no choice but have to live that way? Have we really rid Singapore of poverty? Are our lives really better now than before?
PM spoke of how people benefited from the government housing programme but he plain forgot that the very same government deprived most single Singaporeans from being able to benefit from any housing subsidies. (To qualify for any subsidy, a single must earn less than $3,000 per month. Pray tell how is that possible?) Worse, single Singaporeans now face housing prices that are way beyond their reach. Remember, singles can only buy from the open market and not directly from the Housing and Development Board. Open market flats which cost less than $100 000 from HDB when the owners first bought them cost at least 3 to 5 times as much in the open market. Singles who are attempting to own a unit will be saddled with a mountain of lifetime debt!
There are even more that I can talk about but the bottom line is this. We are busy building and rebuilding and even remaking Singapore into something more and more vibrant and cosmopolitan. However, little provision is made for the common man and its rapidly aging population. Step down facilities to be twinned with acute care hospitals are just one measure for the aged. How about other measures? What happens when I decide to retire? Even if the government raises retirement ages up to 80 years old, there will be one day when I cannot get out of bed any more. Or I simply won't. Then what? Am I condemned to work from 18 to 80 just because I am Singaporean, am poor and have no way to go?
There is little doubt that the PAP government will continue to rule Singapore for at least the next 15 to 20 years. I am no prophet and I am not in the business of speculation so I won't project beyond that. My only question is a simple one: When I am ready to go, where should I be so I can afford to die?
The usual slew of topics - bitching about Singaporeans not giving birth and announcing bonuses - is absent. Of course, what my government and I cannot achieve, we pay less attention to it. Let's showcase our successes instead. So, there were takes on issues such as religious tolerance, the AH1N1, Singapore past and now and possibly the future, and infrastructural updates. PM highlighted the work of all the ministries and gave them kudos.
Of course, in a speech like this, there were no lacking in certain understated but not to be missed moments.
PM Lee envision Singapore to be a Garden of Eden state. If I am not wrong, God owned the Garden of Eden. Enough said.
PM Lee said that people should be inclusive enough so that it is possible for people of different faiths to have a meal at the same table. Even if you don't eat what I eat, it is still possible to share a table. As yourself how many times certain meals must be from a particular religion and every one is forced to eat that, regardless? If there is inclusiveness, then let me eat what I want. In fact, I have asked my neighbour if he minded food that are free of his religious taboos but is cooked in my kitchen. His answer was yes, he minded. So there. Again, enough said.
PM spoke of how a clash between a funeral and a wedding took place. The wedding folks eventually acquiesced and chose an alternative, nearby venue and the town council waived utility charges. Er... I'm pretty sure if the dead person could walk, s/he might want to change a venue to save on charges too? Why not be fair and waive both charges?
PM spoke of the importance of the government to remain secular and the NGOs be that way too so that no one religious group can use such platforms to spread any of their (fanatic) agenda. He also wanted common space to exist. If that is the case, then why is Section 377A still in existence. The government and the laws should be above the religion! Anyone running afoul of Section 377A is a violation of "contract" between the person and the government; what have strong religious sentiment got to do with it? Why even use groups of fervent opposers as an excuse not to overturn the outdated law?
PM spoke of how the picture depicting the NS man (in the Mount Faber SAFRA) is appropriate - his wife is behind him and his kids beside. And how many NS men aren't married, can't even keep a wife, are divorced, don't want the kids they have, have a broken family etc? The rosy pictures are always nice. But show how it really is for the real NS man out there. Do you actually see us struggling with our IPPT? Do you actually see us losing out because of our ICT? Do you even see us?
PM spoke of how the PAP government brought the people out of slums and squatters. The audience laughed when PM spoke about Lim Kim San's visit to Chinatown where he faced a man lying in bed wrapped up in his blanket who claimed that he was being courteous to Mr Lim: his bunk mate and him shared a pair of trousers (gay??) and his mate has worn those trousers out to work then. What's with the laughter? What is so funny? Have we really moved out of poverty? If it were funny sharing trousers in the 1950s, then why is it not funny not having enough money to pay utility bills, pay children's school fees, pay town council charges, or even buy food for a proper meal? Haven't these people who should live with a d*mned paper bag over their heads for living beyond their means have even more to laugh about? Yet, why are they queueing up for handouts? Did they really live beyond their means or have they really no choice but have to live that way? Have we really rid Singapore of poverty? Are our lives really better now than before?
PM spoke of how people benefited from the government housing programme but he plain forgot that the very same government deprived most single Singaporeans from being able to benefit from any housing subsidies. (To qualify for any subsidy, a single must earn less than $3,000 per month. Pray tell how is that possible?) Worse, single Singaporeans now face housing prices that are way beyond their reach. Remember, singles can only buy from the open market and not directly from the Housing and Development Board. Open market flats which cost less than $100 000 from HDB when the owners first bought them cost at least 3 to 5 times as much in the open market. Singles who are attempting to own a unit will be saddled with a mountain of lifetime debt!
There are even more that I can talk about but the bottom line is this. We are busy building and rebuilding and even remaking Singapore into something more and more vibrant and cosmopolitan. However, little provision is made for the common man and its rapidly aging population. Step down facilities to be twinned with acute care hospitals are just one measure for the aged. How about other measures? What happens when I decide to retire? Even if the government raises retirement ages up to 80 years old, there will be one day when I cannot get out of bed any more. Or I simply won't. Then what? Am I condemned to work from 18 to 80 just because I am Singaporean, am poor and have no way to go?
There is little doubt that the PAP government will continue to rule Singapore for at least the next 15 to 20 years. I am no prophet and I am not in the business of speculation so I won't project beyond that. My only question is a simple one: When I am ready to go, where should I be so I can afford to die?
Friday, February 20, 2009
Political cartoon
Wonder if anyone out there would be interested to help me convert whatever is below into a visual cartoon. I wish to send it to NYT and see if I can make the cut as a political cartoonist.
Major bonfire fueled by wood pieces called subprime, Madoff, Lehman, AIA, Auto industry...
Big pot of water being boiled over the fire, name of pot - American Economy
Live frogs in the water, eyes glazed because of the heat, moving limbs as though enjoying the sauna, frog bellies slightly bloated
Tribal chief Obama sits by the fire, tries to keep the frogs alive by adding slivers ice chips (financial aid). There is a leaking cooler box (treasury) beside him, with the lid exposed and shows little remaining ice is inside.
Oh, for dramatic effect, just have the rest of the G7 leaders crowding around looking at Obama conduct the experiment called "The Live but Boiled Frog Paradox".
Honestly, the idea came when I was teaching in class yesterday. I heard that one student has dropped out of college and someone asked if it was due to financial diffuculties. I reflected on why things are that bad now and the image of the frogs being boiled alive came to my mind almost immediately.
We are in a slow meltdown. The whole world is in a mess because no one dares to do anything about it. Take the frogs out of the water and you'll have to contend with the din and their running around. Remove the pot from the fire and you'll stop all activities. Remove the logs from the fire and you'll risk burning yourself.
There is no easy way out and no one wants to face the problem squarely. The aid rendered by various governments so far are just stop-gap measures. In the long run, even if the people don't die, they end up severely burnt and half dead.
I think the best thing to do is to let the market collapse straightaway. Then tell those who are not performing that they have to choose between the prescribed way and the highway. And then expend your remaining money to rebuild.
View this meltdown as a reset button for the economy. Or the snake that leads you back to square one. It is a bitter fruit from our well-cultivated and richly fertilized greed plant. We have no choice but to have to eat what we have grown. It is a bitter pill but since when have medicine tasted good?
We are dragging out the inevitable. We are hoping that we will have enough ice chips to keep the frogs alive to last till the flames go out. Unfortunately, like the Australian forest fires, there are more logs that are waiting to burn. A spark is all that is needed. And we are dangerously low on ice chips.
We the ordinary frogs should not be boiled alive because the people up there are making crap decisions.
Major bonfire fueled by wood pieces called subprime, Madoff, Lehman, AIA, Auto industry...
Big pot of water being boiled over the fire, name of pot - American Economy
Live frogs in the water, eyes glazed because of the heat, moving limbs as though enjoying the sauna, frog bellies slightly bloated
Tribal chief Obama sits by the fire, tries to keep the frogs alive by adding slivers ice chips (financial aid). There is a leaking cooler box (treasury) beside him, with the lid exposed and shows little remaining ice is inside.
Oh, for dramatic effect, just have the rest of the G7 leaders crowding around looking at Obama conduct the experiment called "The Live but Boiled Frog Paradox".
Honestly, the idea came when I was teaching in class yesterday. I heard that one student has dropped out of college and someone asked if it was due to financial diffuculties. I reflected on why things are that bad now and the image of the frogs being boiled alive came to my mind almost immediately.
We are in a slow meltdown. The whole world is in a mess because no one dares to do anything about it. Take the frogs out of the water and you'll have to contend with the din and their running around. Remove the pot from the fire and you'll stop all activities. Remove the logs from the fire and you'll risk burning yourself.
There is no easy way out and no one wants to face the problem squarely. The aid rendered by various governments so far are just stop-gap measures. In the long run, even if the people don't die, they end up severely burnt and half dead.
I think the best thing to do is to let the market collapse straightaway. Then tell those who are not performing that they have to choose between the prescribed way and the highway. And then expend your remaining money to rebuild.
View this meltdown as a reset button for the economy. Or the snake that leads you back to square one. It is a bitter fruit from our well-cultivated and richly fertilized greed plant. We have no choice but to have to eat what we have grown. It is a bitter pill but since when have medicine tasted good?
We are dragging out the inevitable. We are hoping that we will have enough ice chips to keep the frogs alive to last till the flames go out. Unfortunately, like the Australian forest fires, there are more logs that are waiting to burn. A spark is all that is needed. And we are dangerously low on ice chips.
We the ordinary frogs should not be boiled alive because the people up there are making crap decisions.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
The Economic Crisis
Times are bad and a global slowdown is imminent. That's a good thing, unless you're the President-elect promising to do the Rob-in-Hood. Yeah, you know, hood your face, rob the rich, and keep it yourself? Oh, I mean, give to the poor.
The Reds got the US$700 billion rescue package passed. Clearly, this is not enough. Change we need!
I read this morning that the Blues are going to continue the US$700 billion rescue package. They are going to introduce "more stringent" criteria to help them decide who gets saved (the blue backers?) and who doesn't (anything from purple to red?). In addition, they are putting out another US$175 billion stimulus package.
This is still throwing good money at bad. Worse, those with money now have to watch out because they may lose their hard earned moolah to the authorised robbers.
Don't fret! Pass me your money. I'll save them for you. I'll help you invest in Singapore properties. These will only appreciate in value as Singapore land is scarce. And you don't have to worry about the harsh winters and hot summers. We have an agreeable equatorial climate for you guys.
Oh, you're not interested? Fine. Forget I asked.
Getting back to the original discussion, the Red package is bad. The Blue package is essentially the same as the Red package. But it's good. Change you need?
Yeah right. Amazing how people are just so happy with the wine bottle is changed and not the rancid contents.
The Reds got the US$700 billion rescue package passed. Clearly, this is not enough. Change we need!
I read this morning that the Blues are going to continue the US$700 billion rescue package. They are going to introduce "more stringent" criteria to help them decide who gets saved (the blue backers?) and who doesn't (anything from purple to red?). In addition, they are putting out another US$175 billion stimulus package.
This is still throwing good money at bad. Worse, those with money now have to watch out because they may lose their hard earned moolah to the authorised robbers.
Don't fret! Pass me your money. I'll save them for you. I'll help you invest in Singapore properties. These will only appreciate in value as Singapore land is scarce. And you don't have to worry about the harsh winters and hot summers. We have an agreeable equatorial climate for you guys.
Oh, you're not interested? Fine. Forget I asked.
Getting back to the original discussion, the Red package is bad. The Blue package is essentially the same as the Red package. But it's good. Change you need?
Yeah right. Amazing how people are just so happy with the wine bottle is changed and not the rancid contents.
A Matter of Agenda
While the newspapers and various news-related media have a social responsibility to report the truth, the direction of their editorial policies are often influenced by the agenda the decision makers have. Some of these agenda are in the open whereas most are not. While each news source claims to be providing fair reporting of the news, it takes an intelligent reader to be able to read past the nuanced writing to get to the facts that lay beneath the opinions.
News sources that are pro-government are often slammed by the people as mouthpieces of the government. Some of these sources subject themselves to self-censorship before the news are published. In contrast, news sources that are align themselves against certain governments will always criticise what the governments do, regardless of the goodness of intent or policy.
Indeed, in the news arena, change we need. But what kind? Fox, or Faux, News is often slammed as a Red mouthpiece. I wonder who are the Blue mouthpieces. Still, having multiple mouthpieces are necessary because when we take in views from both sides, we will be able to find the common denominator. The common denominator will be the news, which should come to us without the unnecessary embellishments.
So we have a balance of power in the news sources. Er... what are we going to change?
News sources that are pro-government are often slammed by the people as mouthpieces of the government. Some of these sources subject themselves to self-censorship before the news are published. In contrast, news sources that are align themselves against certain governments will always criticise what the governments do, regardless of the goodness of intent or policy.
Indeed, in the news arena, change we need. But what kind? Fox, or Faux, News is often slammed as a Red mouthpiece. I wonder who are the Blue mouthpieces. Still, having multiple mouthpieces are necessary because when we take in views from both sides, we will be able to find the common denominator. The common denominator will be the news, which should come to us without the unnecessary embellishments.
So we have a balance of power in the news sources. Er... what are we going to change?
Thursday, November 06, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama's remarks in Chicago
President-elect victory speech
Hello, Chicago.
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.
It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voices could be that difference.
It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled -- Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America!
It's the answer that -- that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.
It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.
A little bit earlier this evening, I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Senator McCain. Senator McCain fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country that he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him; I congratulate Governor Palin for all that they've achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.
I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on the train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.
And I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years, the rock of our family, the love of my life, the nation's next First Lady: Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both more than you can imagine, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House. And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother's watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and I know that my debt to them is beyond measure. To my sister Maya, my sister Alma, all my other brothers and sisters -- thank you so much for the support that you've given me. I am grateful to them.
And to my campaign manager, David Plouffe -- the unsung hero of this campaign, who built the best -- the best political campaign, I think, in the history of the United States of America. To my chief strategist David Axelrod -- who's been a partner with me every step of the way. To the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics -- you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.
But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you. I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give 5 dollars and 10 dollars and 20 dollars to the cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy, who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep. It drew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on doors of perfect strangers, and from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized and proved that more than two centuries later a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth. This is your victory.
And I know you didn't do this just to win an election. And I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime: two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after the children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage or pay their doctors' bills or save enough for their child's college education. There's new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to meet, alliances to repair.
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President. And we know the government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been done in America for 221 years -- block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand. What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night.
This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other. Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers. In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.
Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a Party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity. Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours: "We are not enemies but friends...." "Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection."¹
And to those Americans who -- whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your President, too.
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.
To those -- To those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we've proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.
That's the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we've already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight's about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.
She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America -- the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot: Yes we can.
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose: Yes we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved: Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "we shall overcome": Yes we can.
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.
And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change: Yes we can.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one;² that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubt and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.
Thank you.
God bless you.
And may God bless the United States of America.
Hello, Chicago.
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.
It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voices could be that difference.
It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled -- Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America!
It's the answer that -- that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.
It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.
A little bit earlier this evening, I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Senator McCain. Senator McCain fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country that he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him; I congratulate Governor Palin for all that they've achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.
I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on the train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.
And I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years, the rock of our family, the love of my life, the nation's next First Lady: Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both more than you can imagine, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House. And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother's watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and I know that my debt to them is beyond measure. To my sister Maya, my sister Alma, all my other brothers and sisters -- thank you so much for the support that you've given me. I am grateful to them.
And to my campaign manager, David Plouffe -- the unsung hero of this campaign, who built the best -- the best political campaign, I think, in the history of the United States of America. To my chief strategist David Axelrod -- who's been a partner with me every step of the way. To the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics -- you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.
But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you. I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give 5 dollars and 10 dollars and 20 dollars to the cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy, who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep. It drew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on doors of perfect strangers, and from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized and proved that more than two centuries later a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth. This is your victory.
And I know you didn't do this just to win an election. And I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime: two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after the children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage or pay their doctors' bills or save enough for their child's college education. There's new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to meet, alliances to repair.
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President. And we know the government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been done in America for 221 years -- block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand. What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night.
This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other. Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers. In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.
Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a Party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity. Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours: "We are not enemies but friends...." "Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection."¹
And to those Americans who -- whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your President, too.
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.
To those -- To those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we've proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.
That's the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we've already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight's about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.
She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America -- the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot: Yes we can.
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose: Yes we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved: Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "we shall overcome": Yes we can.
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.
And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change: Yes we can.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one;² that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubt and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.
Thank you.
God bless you.
And may God bless the United States of America.
T'was in the signs
I should have guessed Obama would win the US presidential elections.
I mean, the signs were all there and the stars were all aligned. Yet, as they say, hindsight is 20-20.
Many Americans were "kao-peh-kao-bu"ing recently. The country was mired in two wars, the subprime crisis was bad, the economy was failing, the Bush Administration can't seem to do right and the people felt "change they need" (even though I don't know if they know exactly what change they need). They were literally "cry-father-cry-mother"ing for change. They wanted the whole system revamped.
I wonder what that means? Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Provide refugee camps for their own people? Print US banana notes to revive the economy? Change from Red to Blue? Oh, yes, change from Red to Blue. That's the only thing they have to do for a start, then the rest will follow. But what's the rest?
So, with a name that combines father "pa or ba" and mother "ma" and which starts off with an exclamation "O!", then the US got their man!
Obama it is!
I mean, the signs were all there and the stars were all aligned. Yet, as they say, hindsight is 20-20.
Many Americans were "kao-peh-kao-bu"ing recently. The country was mired in two wars, the subprime crisis was bad, the economy was failing, the Bush Administration can't seem to do right and the people felt "change they need" (even though I don't know if they know exactly what change they need). They were literally "cry-father-cry-mother"ing for change. They wanted the whole system revamped.
I wonder what that means? Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Provide refugee camps for their own people? Print US banana notes to revive the economy? Change from Red to Blue? Oh, yes, change from Red to Blue. That's the only thing they have to do for a start, then the rest will follow. But what's the rest?
So, with a name that combines father "pa or ba" and mother "ma" and which starts off with an exclamation "O!", then the US got their man!
Obama it is!
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The (Bad) Writing on the Wall
Reluctantly, when all else have lost the ability to bring another round of oohs and aahs after the rush of yet another over the top euphoria at the exchange, the hidden weapon was unleashed.
It was the last thing the phobic leaders wanted to do. To unlease this device could mean dependence on it for a long time. The leaders fear silence on the Street as people flock to enDow their Jones.
Different genes, different sizes. Some countries offer the weenies, while others, the FTSEs. Others like theirs Hang Seng while some, like TW, like them Weighted. Some are so SET in their ways that bootleg KOSPIs (copies) of the magic wand have reared their ugly heads.
Still, to keep the XDAX in NASDAQ, the ultimate comfort weapon, the cash d*ldo had to be taken out from the deepest recesses of the bank vaults of the various central banks. These used to be the singular weapon of pleasure for the you-know-who but now it has to be shared among everyone because there is a sense hanging in the air that with equal misery come equal pleasure. Or so we hope.
Unfortunately, time will prove once again that the ultimate weapon would be shoved up the wrong hole.
It was the last thing the phobic leaders wanted to do. To unlease this device could mean dependence on it for a long time. The leaders fear silence on the Street as people flock to enDow their Jones.
Different genes, different sizes. Some countries offer the weenies, while others, the FTSEs. Others like theirs Hang Seng while some, like TW, like them Weighted. Some are so SET in their ways that bootleg KOSPIs (copies) of the magic wand have reared their ugly heads.
Still, to keep the XDAX in NASDAQ, the ultimate comfort weapon, the cash d*ldo had to be taken out from the deepest recesses of the bank vaults of the various central banks. These used to be the singular weapon of pleasure for the you-know-who but now it has to be shared among everyone because there is a sense hanging in the air that with equal misery come equal pleasure. Or so we hope.
Unfortunately, time will prove once again that the ultimate weapon would be shoved up the wrong hole.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Why disasters are good for us
Too often, people are lulled into complacency when things go as planned. People take comfort afforded by the relative calm and, by and large, believe that if nothing is on fire, then everything is fine. Many people go by the adage, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unknown to many people, things may not be "broke" at the moment but there could be people who are trying to "enhance" the "ain't-ness" by tampering with the products. For each and every expose that shows who the real bad guys are, I am pretty certain that there are many other heinous acts that have gone unnoticed. All too often, to be constantly on our toes to monitor the entire market is untenable because of the massive effort required. However, if we need a shake-up quickly, a disaster may be the best option because of its wide-ranging impact.
Disasters in aviation lead the way in showing how a slip-up can shake up an entire industry. One does not have to look far to realise that the ultimate outcome of aviation disasters was a much safer flying environment for travellers. From zero, investigators learnt about metal fatigue, autopilot limitations, aircraft limitations, pilot training manual mistakes, substitution (of parts) problems, wind shear, bird strikes and so on. Each and every disaster precipitated immediate rounds of aircraft checks and aviation practices reviews. It forces industry players to review and propose new updates, changes, training checks, flight safety improvements and most importantly, renew their respect for human lives in the knowledge that human beings are ultimately at the mercy of the equipment they create. Who would have expected, for one, that the black box on the aircraft is given more protection than the pilot and the passengers?
Similarly, the recent Sichuan Earthquake showed us that Chinese engineers have achieved a world's first in civil engineering - they managed to use "soy pulp" (aka toufu zha) to build houses. The race to trace the history of this practice has led to an ongoing review of the building codes in the region. People are concerned how they could be sold such houses and how public buildings such as schools could also be built in this way with such material. People around the world wonder how such houses are built too. But I am also rather sure that engineers in regions that are immune to earthquakes must also be reviewing their bulding codes - do they really need to reinforce their concrete beams and piles with steel rods since the Chinese have showed that under non-earthquake circumstances, these are not necessary? Some people may be able to get cheaper soy pulp houses in the near future.
People living in the hurricane/typhoon zones and tornado-afflicted areas may especially be interested in these kinds of houses. Imagine, you get soya milk after the disaster. You will be swimming in soya milk! And think of all the benefits that you get from these houses - people get crushed to death by concrete beams and pillars. But do you see or hear of people crushed to death by tofu pulp? No! These people are buried because they added concrete to reinforce their pulp. See? The moral of the story here is not to be too smart!
Talking about additives, the latest melamine additive scandal hit the Chinese dairy market right in the balls, I mean bull's eye. The practice was aimed at "showing" a higher nutritional value of the milk during its decomposition through the emission of more nitrogen, a measure of milk with higher nutritional value. Of course, many of us would have realised that the milk is so nutritious that Chinese, Hong Kong and other babies taking them have ended up with kidney stones. And some of them were so over-nourished, they died. The whole world and China are now looking to check if there are other melamine enhanced milk or related products. Looking back, I do not recall steriods killing that many people, even though WWE wrestler Chris Benoit's death did raise a hue and cry in the North American media. By the way, it was the Chinese media leaking the story of the tainted milk (how I hate the English term; the Chinese call it du-nai, which sounds like tonigh(t)) that led to the expose of this latest scandal; had it not for them, Chinese Dairy apparently would have kept quiet about the entire issue. But how does one add melamine to milk? Imagine melamine is what my chopsticks are made of. How could anyone add that to food? And is it in solid or liquid form? Or did the farmers rub melamine to cow udders to promote milk growth? Or maybe it is injected to make the udders harder so milking can take place more often? Sigh, to quote my favourite "philosopher" from beside Down Under, "I really don't know". Oh, it's the male, not the female, though he has threatened the hanky act too! I wonder what's with the southern hemisphere folks and their handkerchiefs.
Disasters are usually broadcast by the media. In at least one case, I am sure the media has a hand in - the recent Wall Street meltdown. Yes, I blame the media. The media has been guilty of not calling it when they had the ability to. While earning big bucks for themselves is important, the media should blow the whistle when they see the obscene subprime rape. They did not; there was defintely insufficient media expose - isn't that their job - of the issue and I wonder who the guy was who short-sold Lehman until the brothers lost their shirts of their backs. Maybe one day, time (or maybe Time) will tell. I am pretty sure that that story will sell for many bucks. I cannot wait to learn more about the guy who changed Wall Street's landscape. (I am sure many investors are cursing me now, after seeing their investments crash into the proverbial wall! Oh yes, I think some Walls' ice-cream is also being recalled for having used tainted milk.)
As my examples show so far, the world loves a disaster. Diana died - disaster. Mother Theresa died - disaster. Michael Jackson's nose collapsed - disaster. Pope dropped dead - disaster. Hurricane Katrina struck - disaster. 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami - disaster. George Bush got elected for a second term - disaster. Al Gore didn't win - disaster. September 11 - disaster. Sichuan Earthquake - disaster. Hurricane Ike - disaster. Obama wins - disaster. McCain wins - disaster. AIG collapes - disaster. AIG saved - disaster. Marking assignments - disaster. So what's new? What is not a disaster these days?
With the spate of "disasters" now, everything is being checked and rechecked. People are suspicious of everything. You know what is truly a disaster? I received a free - yeah, FREE! - packet of chocolate hazelnut bars in my pigeon hole courtesy of the welfare committee where I work. The first thing I did, I read the packaging from the first word to the last trying to see if the word China appeared anywhere. Or tainted milk. I'd eaten the thing without a second thought in the past.
I think I'll let the rest eat first. If they don't die...
PS. I won't be held responsible for anyone attempting the "Chinese Building Feat - the Soy Pulp Building Method" because it is more an analogy of their concrete being non-reinforced rather than literally being a soy pulp structure. That, would have been a tremendous eye popper!
Disasters in aviation lead the way in showing how a slip-up can shake up an entire industry. One does not have to look far to realise that the ultimate outcome of aviation disasters was a much safer flying environment for travellers. From zero, investigators learnt about metal fatigue, autopilot limitations, aircraft limitations, pilot training manual mistakes, substitution (of parts) problems, wind shear, bird strikes and so on. Each and every disaster precipitated immediate rounds of aircraft checks and aviation practices reviews. It forces industry players to review and propose new updates, changes, training checks, flight safety improvements and most importantly, renew their respect for human lives in the knowledge that human beings are ultimately at the mercy of the equipment they create. Who would have expected, for one, that the black box on the aircraft is given more protection than the pilot and the passengers?
Similarly, the recent Sichuan Earthquake showed us that Chinese engineers have achieved a world's first in civil engineering - they managed to use "soy pulp" (aka toufu zha) to build houses. The race to trace the history of this practice has led to an ongoing review of the building codes in the region. People are concerned how they could be sold such houses and how public buildings such as schools could also be built in this way with such material. People around the world wonder how such houses are built too. But I am also rather sure that engineers in regions that are immune to earthquakes must also be reviewing their bulding codes - do they really need to reinforce their concrete beams and piles with steel rods since the Chinese have showed that under non-earthquake circumstances, these are not necessary? Some people may be able to get cheaper soy pulp houses in the near future.
People living in the hurricane/typhoon zones and tornado-afflicted areas may especially be interested in these kinds of houses. Imagine, you get soya milk after the disaster. You will be swimming in soya milk! And think of all the benefits that you get from these houses - people get crushed to death by concrete beams and pillars. But do you see or hear of people crushed to death by tofu pulp? No! These people are buried because they added concrete to reinforce their pulp. See? The moral of the story here is not to be too smart!
Talking about additives, the latest melamine additive scandal hit the Chinese dairy market right in the balls, I mean bull's eye. The practice was aimed at "showing" a higher nutritional value of the milk during its decomposition through the emission of more nitrogen, a measure of milk with higher nutritional value. Of course, many of us would have realised that the milk is so nutritious that Chinese, Hong Kong and other babies taking them have ended up with kidney stones. And some of them were so over-nourished, they died. The whole world and China are now looking to check if there are other melamine enhanced milk or related products. Looking back, I do not recall steriods killing that many people, even though WWE wrestler Chris Benoit's death did raise a hue and cry in the North American media. By the way, it was the Chinese media leaking the story of the tainted milk (how I hate the English term; the Chinese call it du-nai, which sounds like tonigh(t)) that led to the expose of this latest scandal; had it not for them, Chinese Dairy apparently would have kept quiet about the entire issue. But how does one add melamine to milk? Imagine melamine is what my chopsticks are made of. How could anyone add that to food? And is it in solid or liquid form? Or did the farmers rub melamine to cow udders to promote milk growth? Or maybe it is injected to make the udders harder so milking can take place more often? Sigh, to quote my favourite "philosopher" from beside Down Under, "I really don't know". Oh, it's the male, not the female, though he has threatened the hanky act too! I wonder what's with the southern hemisphere folks and their handkerchiefs.
Disasters are usually broadcast by the media. In at least one case, I am sure the media has a hand in - the recent Wall Street meltdown. Yes, I blame the media. The media has been guilty of not calling it when they had the ability to. While earning big bucks for themselves is important, the media should blow the whistle when they see the obscene subprime rape. They did not; there was defintely insufficient media expose - isn't that their job - of the issue and I wonder who the guy was who short-sold Lehman until the brothers lost their shirts of their backs. Maybe one day, time (or maybe Time) will tell. I am pretty sure that that story will sell for many bucks. I cannot wait to learn more about the guy who changed Wall Street's landscape. (I am sure many investors are cursing me now, after seeing their investments crash into the proverbial wall! Oh yes, I think some Walls' ice-cream is also being recalled for having used tainted milk.)
As my examples show so far, the world loves a disaster. Diana died - disaster. Mother Theresa died - disaster. Michael Jackson's nose collapsed - disaster. Pope dropped dead - disaster. Hurricane Katrina struck - disaster. 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami - disaster. George Bush got elected for a second term - disaster. Al Gore didn't win - disaster. September 11 - disaster. Sichuan Earthquake - disaster. Hurricane Ike - disaster. Obama wins - disaster. McCain wins - disaster. AIG collapes - disaster. AIG saved - disaster. Marking assignments - disaster. So what's new? What is not a disaster these days?
With the spate of "disasters" now, everything is being checked and rechecked. People are suspicious of everything. You know what is truly a disaster? I received a free - yeah, FREE! - packet of chocolate hazelnut bars in my pigeon hole courtesy of the welfare committee where I work. The first thing I did, I read the packaging from the first word to the last trying to see if the word China appeared anywhere. Or tainted milk. I'd eaten the thing without a second thought in the past.
I think I'll let the rest eat first. If they don't die...
PS. I won't be held responsible for anyone attempting the "Chinese Building Feat - the Soy Pulp Building Method" because it is more an analogy of their concrete being non-reinforced rather than literally being a soy pulp structure. That, would have been a tremendous eye popper!
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Political tadpole
I believe if my memory did not fail me, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew did call his brother a political tadpole. You know, so little knowledge of politics and the inside workings.
Recently, I followed a big online "spat" between two bloggers I hold in equally high esteem. I'd better tread carefully here because I realise that either of them have all the time to retaliate against me than I would ever have in my life. I'm not entirely sure but it's a safe assumption, unless I want to be deluged with death threats from both sides of the big pond.
Interestingly, when I visited my uncle in Taiwan during my holidays, he too, I realised, is extremely passionate about politics. We could never get any political discussion started because the political systems involved were vastly different.
If Singapore had a parliament, yes we adapted the Westminster style, that could have fist fights, our economy would have long died. Singapore could only thrive when there is a quasi-communist democracy. Don't take me to task -this is the way I see it and I am entitled to my opinion. I can't find something more appropriate at the moment but I am open to suggestions - for naming that ideological leaning(s) only.
We have a highly paternalistic government that almost decides for us what should be done, with room for you to choose how you want to do it. We have unions - interestingly in a tripartite arrangement with the government and the workers. It isn't the neatest arrangement but we probably need it.
To understand Singapore better, one can probably go to wikipedia. But what I wanted to say is that the political tadpole analogy seems terribly damning.
Even when the tadpole grows up, he's probably a frog in a political well...
I guess being arm chair political critics are easy. Just like backseat drivers.
But as long as we reach the intended destination, we probably have to grin and bear with the motion sickness. After all, at least for me, Singapore did not get here with a bumbling government.
Recently, I followed a big online "spat" between two bloggers I hold in equally high esteem. I'd better tread carefully here because I realise that either of them have all the time to retaliate against me than I would ever have in my life. I'm not entirely sure but it's a safe assumption, unless I want to be deluged with death threats from both sides of the big pond.
Interestingly, when I visited my uncle in Taiwan during my holidays, he too, I realised, is extremely passionate about politics. We could never get any political discussion started because the political systems involved were vastly different.
If Singapore had a parliament, yes we adapted the Westminster style, that could have fist fights, our economy would have long died. Singapore could only thrive when there is a quasi-communist democracy. Don't take me to task -this is the way I see it and I am entitled to my opinion. I can't find something more appropriate at the moment but I am open to suggestions - for naming that ideological leaning(s) only.
We have a highly paternalistic government that almost decides for us what should be done, with room for you to choose how you want to do it. We have unions - interestingly in a tripartite arrangement with the government and the workers. It isn't the neatest arrangement but we probably need it.
To understand Singapore better, one can probably go to wikipedia. But what I wanted to say is that the political tadpole analogy seems terribly damning.
Even when the tadpole grows up, he's probably a frog in a political well...
I guess being arm chair political critics are easy. Just like backseat drivers.
But as long as we reach the intended destination, we probably have to grin and bear with the motion sickness. After all, at least for me, Singapore did not get here with a bumbling government.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
If only...
Singapore planted a flag or erected some functionally useless fences on the Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Perhaps we would be granted sovereignty of that as well.
Oh, well. Perhaps not. Pirates would cut those fences and sell to the scrap yard for money.
Oh, well. Perhaps not. Pirates would cut those fences and sell to the scrap yard for money.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Delaying the inevitable
I may be jumping the gun here but I think the woman is really trying to delay the inevitable.
She's already so far behind and she's already lent her campaign US$6 million!
But perhaps that's small money.
I hear Billy gives talks at USD 250k per pop. And given his prowess and the practice that he had with and on his intern, he could probably take on a sideline.
What made me amused was the fact that he did not ask her to back down. Or did her. Because the numbers are hard to deny and overcome. The opponent had a significantly strong hand.
Party members would also realise that even if she wins, her winning margin would make her target for opposition gunfire because of her highly fractious campaign. If people really wanted her, she wouldn't have had to settle for such a nomination on such pathetic numbers.
In fact, both her and her opponent are either so damned good that the party is having a hard time to decide or are so damned that the party is having a hard time to decide. Finally, the whole people will have a hard time trying to decide as well.
If she threw in the towel now and graciously backed him, she could probably claim credit as a "king-maker".
But only time will tell if this post has jumped the gun.
She's already so far behind and she's already lent her campaign US$6 million!
But perhaps that's small money.
I hear Billy gives talks at USD 250k per pop. And given his prowess and the practice that he had with and on his intern, he could probably take on a sideline.
What made me amused was the fact that he did not ask her to back down. Or did her. Because the numbers are hard to deny and overcome. The opponent had a significantly strong hand.
Party members would also realise that even if she wins, her winning margin would make her target for opposition gunfire because of her highly fractious campaign. If people really wanted her, she wouldn't have had to settle for such a nomination on such pathetic numbers.
In fact, both her and her opponent are either so damned good that the party is having a hard time to decide or are so damned that the party is having a hard time to decide. Finally, the whole people will have a hard time trying to decide as well.
If she threw in the towel now and graciously backed him, she could probably claim credit as a "king-maker".
But only time will tell if this post has jumped the gun.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
There will be miracles...
I hope David Archuleta wins American Idol. I'd boldly predict that it will be a David vs David final.
The bona fide Brooke White has been voted out. Sayesha will be next. When it comes down to the final two, the male Brooke White aka Jason Castro will bite the dust. So it'll be David Archuleta and David Cook.
Archuleta is a cutie. Instantly loveable. And it helps that we do not have a voice like his for a long time. Cook grows on you. And it helps to be 27. Compared to Archuleta's 17, being 27 allows you to bring more maturity and depth into the performance. If I had my way, I'll let them both be American Idol for this season.
Amazingly, I have been spot on for all the episodes since the last 24. I'm just watching the results show just to confirm my guesses. And I have been watching performances and guessing - correctly too - what Randy, Paula and Simon will say to the contestants.
And most of the time, Simon says what I would say. Not to say that I'm good, but to wonder if and why Americans are not good at taking the truth. They boo Simon but whatever for? Do you guys really want a substandard idol?
But this is not the main thrust of this entry.
I am here to share my joy as my babies sprouted as many fresh shoots as there are openings last night.
It had been a long hard dry hot spell in Singapore. Amazingly, the bush fires have not started although people are getting increasingly hot about the rising inflation rate, rising rice prices, rising petrol prices, rising edible oil prices, rising cooked food prices, rising temperature, and what have you.
People forget however that there are things that are also rising, to which we should cheer, like rising Sing Dollars. Oh, right. You won't cheer this because this would mean that more foreign (do you really have) talent would be coming to Singapore to snatch from us a piece of the work pie, never mind the fact that those jobs such as sweeping corridors, rubbish collection, shipyard work, coffeeshop waitresses, and nursing home attendants, to name a few, are work that no Singaporean wanted. Or for that matter, never mind if we have run out of Singaporeans to do the job. It's just that we are too scared to lose those jobs to foreigners, just in case they do better than us despite their (lack of) talent. Just for the record, their productivity is already higher than the best Singaporean employee for the simple fact that they would work for paltry pay.
So we complain bitterly about increases. So one would assume that we ought to be grateful to things that decrease. But no!
Singaporeans curse their bad luck when property prices fall. But in the first place, when the property market was booming, Singaporeans chased it upwards. No one asked you to work those prices up. Honestly. But you cannot wait to buy the even bigger next apartment in an even more exclusive area. I didn't hold a gun to your head to force you to buy. You heated the market and now when you run out of coal, I mean cash, to feed to burner, of course the sector would cool.
Now that the prices are falling, they begin to lament their bad luck. But hey, if you think you could afford to invest in a 5th, 6th, 7th,... condominium apartment to collect rent or even flip it for a handsome profit, you should take to price dips kindly too. For depriving the likes of me a simple roof over my head because you need to flaunt how rich you are, the price you pay is really small.
There are other things that are falling too. For instance, the interest that we earn from our savings accounts. The interest rates now make savings a money losing proposition. And the food portions are falling in tandem with rising food prices too. And, relative to the inflation, my purchasing power is falling. In fact, I just bought myself 3 Timberland shirts from some warehouse sale when I should be getting something from Hugo Balls.
But I live in hope that there will be miracles. Like the one that I created for my herb garden last night.
Before I go there, I'd like to share something that an American friend of mine told me a couple of months back - if the US economy slips, it'll go straight into depression. In fact, she said that Bernanke is a "Depression" scholar and his act of rating rates is in fact an anti-depression move. To me, I tread carefully because these are uncertain times. And since I am now self-employed, I believe staying liquid is better than tying up all my money in stocks, gold and foreign currencies, especially when I really don't have all that money to tie up anyway.
So, back to the plants. All I did was to spritz them liberally with cool mist last night. The heat and the sudden water mist fooled them into thinking that the drought is over and a new, season of abundant water is coming. So they "blossomed" by sprouting new buds, growing new leaves.
The entire herb garden of dark solid coloured leaves is now accentuated with bright, pale green buds. The strength of life! And an immaculate understanding of biology and the environment, thanks to another miracle, the TV.
The bona fide Brooke White has been voted out. Sayesha will be next. When it comes down to the final two, the male Brooke White aka Jason Castro will bite the dust. So it'll be David Archuleta and David Cook.
Archuleta is a cutie. Instantly loveable. And it helps that we do not have a voice like his for a long time. Cook grows on you. And it helps to be 27. Compared to Archuleta's 17, being 27 allows you to bring more maturity and depth into the performance. If I had my way, I'll let them both be American Idol for this season.
Amazingly, I have been spot on for all the episodes since the last 24. I'm just watching the results show just to confirm my guesses. And I have been watching performances and guessing - correctly too - what Randy, Paula and Simon will say to the contestants.
And most of the time, Simon says what I would say. Not to say that I'm good, but to wonder if and why Americans are not good at taking the truth. They boo Simon but whatever for? Do you guys really want a substandard idol?
But this is not the main thrust of this entry.
I am here to share my joy as my babies sprouted as many fresh shoots as there are openings last night.
It had been a long hard dry hot spell in Singapore. Amazingly, the bush fires have not started although people are getting increasingly hot about the rising inflation rate, rising rice prices, rising petrol prices, rising edible oil prices, rising cooked food prices, rising temperature, and what have you.
People forget however that there are things that are also rising, to which we should cheer, like rising Sing Dollars. Oh, right. You won't cheer this because this would mean that more foreign (do you really have) talent would be coming to Singapore to snatch from us a piece of the work pie, never mind the fact that those jobs such as sweeping corridors, rubbish collection, shipyard work, coffeeshop waitresses, and nursing home attendants, to name a few, are work that no Singaporean wanted. Or for that matter, never mind if we have run out of Singaporeans to do the job. It's just that we are too scared to lose those jobs to foreigners, just in case they do better than us despite their (lack of) talent. Just for the record, their productivity is already higher than the best Singaporean employee for the simple fact that they would work for paltry pay.
So we complain bitterly about increases. So one would assume that we ought to be grateful to things that decrease. But no!
Singaporeans curse their bad luck when property prices fall. But in the first place, when the property market was booming, Singaporeans chased it upwards. No one asked you to work those prices up. Honestly. But you cannot wait to buy the even bigger next apartment in an even more exclusive area. I didn't hold a gun to your head to force you to buy. You heated the market and now when you run out of coal, I mean cash, to feed to burner, of course the sector would cool.
Now that the prices are falling, they begin to lament their bad luck. But hey, if you think you could afford to invest in a 5th, 6th, 7th,... condominium apartment to collect rent or even flip it for a handsome profit, you should take to price dips kindly too. For depriving the likes of me a simple roof over my head because you need to flaunt how rich you are, the price you pay is really small.
There are other things that are falling too. For instance, the interest that we earn from our savings accounts. The interest rates now make savings a money losing proposition. And the food portions are falling in tandem with rising food prices too. And, relative to the inflation, my purchasing power is falling. In fact, I just bought myself 3 Timberland shirts from some warehouse sale when I should be getting something from Hugo Balls.
But I live in hope that there will be miracles. Like the one that I created for my herb garden last night.
Before I go there, I'd like to share something that an American friend of mine told me a couple of months back - if the US economy slips, it'll go straight into depression. In fact, she said that Bernanke is a "Depression" scholar and his act of rating rates is in fact an anti-depression move. To me, I tread carefully because these are uncertain times. And since I am now self-employed, I believe staying liquid is better than tying up all my money in stocks, gold and foreign currencies, especially when I really don't have all that money to tie up anyway.
So, back to the plants. All I did was to spritz them liberally with cool mist last night. The heat and the sudden water mist fooled them into thinking that the drought is over and a new, season of abundant water is coming. So they "blossomed" by sprouting new buds, growing new leaves.
The entire herb garden of dark solid coloured leaves is now accentuated with bright, pale green buds. The strength of life! And an immaculate understanding of biology and the environment, thanks to another miracle, the TV.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Thank you Malaysia
I heaved a huge sigh when I saw the newspapers announcing the Malaysia 2008 election results.
Deep inside me, my admiration of MM Lee Kwan Yew went a few notches higher. Even though as a Singaporean, I may not always agree with him, I do hold his opinion and views in high regard. Even if I do not like the man, I do not see any value in denying the worth of what he has done for us or the advice he has for us. This being said, I do like MM Lee.
Singapore and Malaysia were once one.
On 16 September 1963, Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak were formally merged and Malaysia was formed. For Singapore, the merger was thought to benefit the economy by creating a common free market, eliminating trade tariffs, and solving unemployment woes. The British government approved the merger, convinced that Singapore's security would be safeguarded within the much larger Malaysia.
The union was rocky from the start. During the 1963 Singapore state elections, a local branch of UMNO took part in the election despite an earlier UMNO's agreement with the PAP not to participate in the state's politics during Malaysia's formative years. Although UMNO lost all its bids, relations between PAP and UMNO worsened as the PAP, in a tit-for-tat, challenged UMNO candidates in the 1964 federal election as part of the Malaysian Solidarity Convention, winning one seat in Malaysian Parliament.
This union between the two countries as not a happy one. Malaysia was predominantly Malay whereas Singapore was predominantly Chinese. Lee Kuan Yew then had wanted equality for all races and build a Malaysian Malaysia. However, the UMNO leadership had wanted it to be a Malay Malaysia.
Racial tensions increased dramatically within a year and were fueled by Barisan Sosialis's tactics of stirring up communal sentiment to discredit the government of Singapore and the federal government of Malaysia.[citation needed] In particular, the Chinese in Singapore disdained being discriminated against by the federal policies of affirmative action, which granted special privileges to the Malays guaranteed under Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia. There were also other financial and economic benefits that were preferentially given to Malays. Lee Kuan Yew and other political leaders began advocating for the fair and equal treatment of all races in Malaysia, with a rallying cry of "Malaysian Malaysia!".
The start of the racial riot on Muhammad's birthday, that would later injure hundreds and killed 23 people. Meanwhile, the Malays in Singapore were being increasingly incited by the federal government's accusations that the PAP was mistreating the Malays. The external political situation was also tense when Indonesian President Sukarno declared a state of Konfrontasi (Confrontation) against Malaysia and initiated military and other actions against the new nation, including the bombing of MacDonald House in Singapore in March 1965 by Indonesian commandos, killing three people. Indonesia also conducted sedition activities to provoke the Malays against the Chinese. Numerous racial riots resulted and curfews were frequently imposed to restore order. The most notorious riots were the 1964 Race Riots that first took place on Prophet Muhammad's birthday on 21 July with twenty three people killed and hundreds injured. During the unrest, the price of food skyrocketed when transport system was disrupted, causing further hardship for the people.
The state and federal governments also had conflicts on the economic front. UMNO leaders feared that the economic dominance of Singapore would inevitably shift political power away from Kuala Lumpur. Despite earlier agreement to establish a common market, Singapore continued to face restrictions when trading with the rest of Malaysia. In retaliation, Singapore refused to provide Sabah and Sarawak the full extent of the loans previously agreed to for the economic development of the two eastern states. The situation escalated to such intensity that talks soon broke down and abusive speeches and writings became rife on both sides. UMNO extremists called for the arrest of Lee Kuan Yew.
The divisive ideology was breaking up the union. The end of the merger was imminent.
Seeing no other alternative to avoid further bloodshed, the Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman decided to expel Singapore from the federation. The Parliament of Malaysia voted 126-0 in favour of the expulsion on 9 August 1965. On that day, a tearful Lee Kuan Yew announced on a televised press conference that Singapore was a sovereign, independent nation. In a widely remembered quote, he uttered that: "For me, it is a moment of anguish. All my life, my whole adult life, I have believed in merger and unity of the two territories." The new state became the Republic of Singapore and Yusof bin Ishak was appointed the first President.
The merger then was discussed on win-win terms. Singapore got to enhance its economic and people's ties with Malaysia while Malaysia could get the support of the predominantly Chinese population as well as the non-Communist PAP to stave off Communist threats. It was after the 12 years of the Malayan Emergency (against Communism) and what happened after that would make or break both countries.
With hindsight, it was easy to ridicule the marriage of convenience and condemn it to fail. However, who in the right mind would not have approached the marriage with the positive hope that it could just work out? Again, while it is easy now to say how the differences would have doomed the merger from the start, it might not be easy to reconcile the willingness then to make the differences work.
Still, when Singapore was unceremoniously kicked out, then-PM Lee was choked with emotions. I've seen the video footage. This was a man with a dream. The dream would have led to a major overhaul of both Singapore and Malaysia and jointly, these two countries might have produced an economic miracle much earlier. But the dream was not brought to bear.
Singapore became independent and moved in the direction of a Singaporean Singapore. Our pledge said it all:
We, the citizens of Singapore
Pledge ourselves as one united people
Regardless of race, language or religion
To build a democratic society
Based on justice and equality
So as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.
- S Rajaratnam in 1966
(For the uninitiated, the late Mr Rajaratnam is a Singaporean of Sri Lankan descent. His pledge said it all - Singapore was to be a meritocracy.)
Malaysia also went on its way to create its identity. Critically, Tunku Abdul Rahman implemented the bumiputra policy. Among other things, aspects of the bumiputra policy are means of affirmative action for the Malays. Such policies include quotas for the following: admission to government educational institutions, qualification for public scholarships, positions in government and ownership in business. Most of them were established in the Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP). Many of them focus on establishing a Bumiputra share of corporate equity comprising at least 30% of the total.
Consequentially, as a result of these policies, many Bumiputera millionaires were born at the stroke of a pen due to their connections.
In addition to the above economic advantages, Bumiputras previously received other privileges in public tertiary education, such as ethnic quotas. In 2004, Dr. Shafie Salleh, the newly appointed Higher Education Minister, stated that he "will ensure the quota of Malay students' entry into universities is always higher". This was demonstrated in 2004 when Non-Bumiputra students who scored 5As in the STPM (the highest possible grade) were denied admission to their first choice of study in public universities while Bumiputra students with lesser grades were nonetheless admitted.
Since 2000, the Government has discussed phasing out certain discriminatory practises, and reinstating "meritocracy". The eventual result was the system of "Malaysian model meritocracy" begun in 2003. In the implementation, admission to public universities was not based upon a common examination like the SAT or A-Levels but rather upon two parallel systems of a one-year matriculation course and a two-year STPM (literally translated as "Malaysian Higher School Certificate") programme. Bumiputras compose an overwhelming majority of entrants to the matriculation programme, leading to some complaints from the public, as the public university entry requirements are suggested to be easier for matriculation students.
For a long time, Malaysia has been ruled by the Barisan Nasional coalition of UMNO, MCA, Gerakan, MIC, and other smaller parties. It may be an open secret who are the abangs (elder brothers) and who are the adiks (younger brothers) when you see how the gravy train tracks run. For a long time, the coalition thought that the masses' needs are well-taken care of and addressed. But has it really been the case?
Political awakening
Given the recent spate of events, it was without a doubt that the minority Chinese and Indians in Malaysia are seething with anger after suffering so much injustice for so many years. Singapore, especially, has been a happy recipient country of many talented Malaysian Chinese and Indians who come here for studies and then settle down and contribute to our growth. But those who were not able to leave suffered in silence.
Until recently, the deafening silence became too loud to bear. The recent election results suggest that the ruling coalition and the masses probably have different hearing ranges. The government still heard nothing while the masses already have their ear drums blown out by the screams of anger and misery.
Political awakening has arrived.
This election outcome was not unexpected. It was a matter of time - albeit almost 50 years too late - that it arrived. Political systems, like many systems, have the ability to correct themselves and restore balance. The current system is skewed system and the election hopefully would restore it from its tipping point.
It is easy to blame PM Abdullah. It is also easy to credit Anwar or the other opposition leaders for making inroads. But the seeds of decay were planted much earlier. It is merely harvest time during Abdullah's watch.
BN may or may not know what to do next. But certainly, Malaysia needs to start healing itself and addressing the grievances, perceived or real. Malaysia knows it. Given this political pit-stop, Malaysia will invariably need to slow itself down and re-examine its options. It might set the overall development landscape back by a decade or so but I believe that Malaysia boleh.
While Singapore gleefully could stand beside a self-pronounced abang brought to its knees, Singapore knows that to do so is also to its detriment. Apart or as one, Singapore and Malaysia are more inter-twined that anyone could imagine. As a Singaporean, however, I cannot help but feel so very thankful to Malaysia and Tunku Abdul Rahman for kicking us out.
Deep inside me, my admiration of MM Lee Kwan Yew went a few notches higher. Even though as a Singaporean, I may not always agree with him, I do hold his opinion and views in high regard. Even if I do not like the man, I do not see any value in denying the worth of what he has done for us or the advice he has for us. This being said, I do like MM Lee.
Singapore and Malaysia were once one.
On 16 September 1963, Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak were formally merged and Malaysia was formed. For Singapore, the merger was thought to benefit the economy by creating a common free market, eliminating trade tariffs, and solving unemployment woes. The British government approved the merger, convinced that Singapore's security would be safeguarded within the much larger Malaysia.
The union was rocky from the start. During the 1963 Singapore state elections, a local branch of UMNO took part in the election despite an earlier UMNO's agreement with the PAP not to participate in the state's politics during Malaysia's formative years. Although UMNO lost all its bids, relations between PAP and UMNO worsened as the PAP, in a tit-for-tat, challenged UMNO candidates in the 1964 federal election as part of the Malaysian Solidarity Convention, winning one seat in Malaysian Parliament.
This union between the two countries as not a happy one. Malaysia was predominantly Malay whereas Singapore was predominantly Chinese. Lee Kuan Yew then had wanted equality for all races and build a Malaysian Malaysia. However, the UMNO leadership had wanted it to be a Malay Malaysia.
Racial tensions increased dramatically within a year and were fueled by Barisan Sosialis's tactics of stirring up communal sentiment to discredit the government of Singapore and the federal government of Malaysia.[citation needed] In particular, the Chinese in Singapore disdained being discriminated against by the federal policies of affirmative action, which granted special privileges to the Malays guaranteed under Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia. There were also other financial and economic benefits that were preferentially given to Malays. Lee Kuan Yew and other political leaders began advocating for the fair and equal treatment of all races in Malaysia, with a rallying cry of "Malaysian Malaysia!".
The start of the racial riot on Muhammad's birthday, that would later injure hundreds and killed 23 people. Meanwhile, the Malays in Singapore were being increasingly incited by the federal government's accusations that the PAP was mistreating the Malays. The external political situation was also tense when Indonesian President Sukarno declared a state of Konfrontasi (Confrontation) against Malaysia and initiated military and other actions against the new nation, including the bombing of MacDonald House in Singapore in March 1965 by Indonesian commandos, killing three people. Indonesia also conducted sedition activities to provoke the Malays against the Chinese. Numerous racial riots resulted and curfews were frequently imposed to restore order. The most notorious riots were the 1964 Race Riots that first took place on Prophet Muhammad's birthday on 21 July with twenty three people killed and hundreds injured. During the unrest, the price of food skyrocketed when transport system was disrupted, causing further hardship for the people.
The state and federal governments also had conflicts on the economic front. UMNO leaders feared that the economic dominance of Singapore would inevitably shift political power away from Kuala Lumpur. Despite earlier agreement to establish a common market, Singapore continued to face restrictions when trading with the rest of Malaysia. In retaliation, Singapore refused to provide Sabah and Sarawak the full extent of the loans previously agreed to for the economic development of the two eastern states. The situation escalated to such intensity that talks soon broke down and abusive speeches and writings became rife on both sides. UMNO extremists called for the arrest of Lee Kuan Yew.
The divisive ideology was breaking up the union. The end of the merger was imminent.
Seeing no other alternative to avoid further bloodshed, the Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman decided to expel Singapore from the federation. The Parliament of Malaysia voted 126-0 in favour of the expulsion on 9 August 1965. On that day, a tearful Lee Kuan Yew announced on a televised press conference that Singapore was a sovereign, independent nation. In a widely remembered quote, he uttered that: "For me, it is a moment of anguish. All my life, my whole adult life, I have believed in merger and unity of the two territories." The new state became the Republic of Singapore and Yusof bin Ishak was appointed the first President.
The merger then was discussed on win-win terms. Singapore got to enhance its economic and people's ties with Malaysia while Malaysia could get the support of the predominantly Chinese population as well as the non-Communist PAP to stave off Communist threats. It was after the 12 years of the Malayan Emergency (against Communism) and what happened after that would make or break both countries.
With hindsight, it was easy to ridicule the marriage of convenience and condemn it to fail. However, who in the right mind would not have approached the marriage with the positive hope that it could just work out? Again, while it is easy now to say how the differences would have doomed the merger from the start, it might not be easy to reconcile the willingness then to make the differences work.
Still, when Singapore was unceremoniously kicked out, then-PM Lee was choked with emotions. I've seen the video footage. This was a man with a dream. The dream would have led to a major overhaul of both Singapore and Malaysia and jointly, these two countries might have produced an economic miracle much earlier. But the dream was not brought to bear.
Singapore became independent and moved in the direction of a Singaporean Singapore. Our pledge said it all:
We, the citizens of Singapore
Pledge ourselves as one united people
Regardless of race, language or religion
To build a democratic society
Based on justice and equality
So as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.
- S Rajaratnam in 1966
(For the uninitiated, the late Mr Rajaratnam is a Singaporean of Sri Lankan descent. His pledge said it all - Singapore was to be a meritocracy.)
Malaysia also went on its way to create its identity. Critically, Tunku Abdul Rahman implemented the bumiputra policy. Among other things, aspects of the bumiputra policy are means of affirmative action for the Malays. Such policies include quotas for the following: admission to government educational institutions, qualification for public scholarships, positions in government and ownership in business. Most of them were established in the Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP). Many of them focus on establishing a Bumiputra share of corporate equity comprising at least 30% of the total.
Consequentially, as a result of these policies, many Bumiputera millionaires were born at the stroke of a pen due to their connections.
In addition to the above economic advantages, Bumiputras previously received other privileges in public tertiary education, such as ethnic quotas. In 2004, Dr. Shafie Salleh, the newly appointed Higher Education Minister, stated that he "will ensure the quota of Malay students' entry into universities is always higher". This was demonstrated in 2004 when Non-Bumiputra students who scored 5As in the STPM (the highest possible grade) were denied admission to their first choice of study in public universities while Bumiputra students with lesser grades were nonetheless admitted.
Since 2000, the Government has discussed phasing out certain discriminatory practises, and reinstating "meritocracy". The eventual result was the system of "Malaysian model meritocracy" begun in 2003. In the implementation, admission to public universities was not based upon a common examination like the SAT or A-Levels but rather upon two parallel systems of a one-year matriculation course and a two-year STPM (literally translated as "Malaysian Higher School Certificate") programme. Bumiputras compose an overwhelming majority of entrants to the matriculation programme, leading to some complaints from the public, as the public university entry requirements are suggested to be easier for matriculation students.
For a long time, Malaysia has been ruled by the Barisan Nasional coalition of UMNO, MCA, Gerakan, MIC, and other smaller parties. It may be an open secret who are the abangs (elder brothers) and who are the adiks (younger brothers) when you see how the gravy train tracks run. For a long time, the coalition thought that the masses' needs are well-taken care of and addressed. But has it really been the case?
Political awakening
Given the recent spate of events, it was without a doubt that the minority Chinese and Indians in Malaysia are seething with anger after suffering so much injustice for so many years. Singapore, especially, has been a happy recipient country of many talented Malaysian Chinese and Indians who come here for studies and then settle down and contribute to our growth. But those who were not able to leave suffered in silence.
Until recently, the deafening silence became too loud to bear. The recent election results suggest that the ruling coalition and the masses probably have different hearing ranges. The government still heard nothing while the masses already have their ear drums blown out by the screams of anger and misery.
Political awakening has arrived.
This election outcome was not unexpected. It was a matter of time - albeit almost 50 years too late - that it arrived. Political systems, like many systems, have the ability to correct themselves and restore balance. The current system is skewed system and the election hopefully would restore it from its tipping point.
It is easy to blame PM Abdullah. It is also easy to credit Anwar or the other opposition leaders for making inroads. But the seeds of decay were planted much earlier. It is merely harvest time during Abdullah's watch.
BN may or may not know what to do next. But certainly, Malaysia needs to start healing itself and addressing the grievances, perceived or real. Malaysia knows it. Given this political pit-stop, Malaysia will invariably need to slow itself down and re-examine its options. It might set the overall development landscape back by a decade or so but I believe that Malaysia boleh.
While Singapore gleefully could stand beside a self-pronounced abang brought to its knees, Singapore knows that to do so is also to its detriment. Apart or as one, Singapore and Malaysia are more inter-twined that anyone could imagine. As a Singaporean, however, I cannot help but feel so very thankful to Malaysia and Tunku Abdul Rahman for kicking us out.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Results of My Political Compass
Results of My Political Compass
The Political Compass
The Political Compass website copyright (c) Pace News Limited 2001-2002. All rights reserved.
There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left' , established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.
That's about as much as we should tell you for now. After you've responded to the following propositions during the next 3-5 minutes, all will be explained. In each instance, you're asked to choose the response that best describes your feeling: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree or Strongly Agree. At the end of the test, you'll be given the compass, with your own special position on it.
The test is entirely anonymous. None of your personal details are required, and nothing about your result is recorded or logged in any way. The answers are only used to calculate your reading, and cannot be accessed by anyone, ever.
The idea was developed by a political journalist with a university counselling background, assisted by a professor of social history. They're indebted to people like Wilhelm Reich and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field. We believe that, in an age of diminishing ideology, a new generation in particular will get a better idea of where they stand politically - and the sort of political company they keep.
In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.
That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.
Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period
You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.
The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy).
The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.
In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
International Chart
A diverse professional team has assessed the words and actions of internationally known contemporary leaders to give you an idea of how they relate to each other on the political compass.
The Political Compass
The Political Compass website copyright (c) Pace News Limited 2001-2002. All rights reserved.
There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left' , established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.
That's about as much as we should tell you for now. After you've responded to the following propositions during the next 3-5 minutes, all will be explained. In each instance, you're asked to choose the response that best describes your feeling: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree or Strongly Agree. At the end of the test, you'll be given the compass, with your own special position on it.
The test is entirely anonymous. None of your personal details are required, and nothing about your result is recorded or logged in any way. The answers are only used to calculate your reading, and cannot be accessed by anyone, ever.
The idea was developed by a political journalist with a university counselling background, assisted by a professor of social history. They're indebted to people like Wilhelm Reich and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field. We believe that, in an age of diminishing ideology, a new generation in particular will get a better idea of where they stand politically - and the sort of political company they keep.
In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.
That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.
Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period
You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.
The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy).
The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.
In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
International Chart
A diverse professional team has assessed the words and actions of internationally known contemporary leaders to give you an idea of how they relate to each other on the political compass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)