Election "Cooling of Day" - Cool?

• OHSheet

  4 Dec 09, 21:53

  does anyone suspect that the gahment will turn off broadband during that 24hrs, regardless if it affects businesses?

   

  i think if really despo, they might

• 4sg

  4 Dec 09, 22:03

  Yes, they may resort to blocking sites. The law is silent on this aspect.

  Also, as one opposition candidate pointed out, they may resort to announcing goodies on the cooling day itself or playing some 'nationalized' songs with political skew on national TV. Again the law is silent on this aspect.

• angel3070

  4 Dec 09, 22:12

  The PAP always resorts to dirty tricks to win.

  They never play fair in elections.

  Really look down on PAP as a political party in elections.

• charlize

  4 Dec 09, 22:20

  Originally posted by 4sg:

  Yes, they may resort to blocking sites. The law is silent on this aspect.

  Also, as one opposition candidate pointed out, they may resort to announcing goodies on the cooling day itself or playing some 'nationalized' songs with political skew on national TV. Again the law is silent on this aspect.

  Not only that.

   

  They may find some excuse to disqualify opposition candidates with some ridiculous reason like if he posted some political stuff on his blog on that day.

   

  Or maybe catch him speaking to residents about his party's manifesto etc.

   

  Anything is fair game.

• 4sg

  4 Dec 09, 22:29

  Originally posted by charlize:

  Not only that.

   

  They may find some excuse to disqualify opposition candidates with some ridiculous reason like if he posted some political stuff on his blog on that day.

   

  Or maybe catch him speaking to residents about his party's manifesto etc.

   

  Anything is fair game.

  And if nothing works, walk into the polling station on polling day and 'welcome' voters into voting for them.

  All things are fairy game.

• tan reborn

  5 Dec 09, 05:55

  Singapore does not need cooling-off day due to lack of genuine political competition

  December 4, 2009 by admin  
  Filed under Headlines

  Leave a comment

  Written by our Correspondent

  A Singaporean by the name of Joshua Selvakumar had written to the Straits Times Forum today sharing his views on why Singapore doesn’t need a cooling-off day yet.

  Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced lately that a cooling-off day on the eve of polling day when all forms of public campaigning will be banned to allow voters to reflect on their choices “calmly”.

  The opposition has lambasted the latest move as a ploy to score an unfair advantage for the ruling party as the mainstream media is still allowed to report on the elections on the cooling-off day.

  The Singapore media is tightly controlled by the ruling party and is largely pro-government.

  Mr Johsua wrote that the cooling-day is unnecessary because compared to neighboring countries, Singapore’s “democracy exercise is a quiet one” due to the lack of genuine political competition between the different parties.

  He poured scorn on the opposition’s ability to give the PAP a run for its money:

  “You weigh the PAP players’ strength, teamwork, game strategy, professionalism and brand image against the opposition players’ lack of strength, teamwork, strategy, brand image and track record on the national front with only emotional support from fans. You know the winner even before the game has started,” he said.

  Very few Singaporeans dare to join the opposition to challenge the ruling party due to its inherent risks and “dangers”.

  The boundaries between the state and party are blurred in Singapore which is ruled continuously by the same party – the PAP for five decades since 1959.

  MM Lee Kuan Yew said in an interview with Petir in 1984 when he was the Prime Minister that he is not afraid to admit that the PAP is the government of Singapore and vice versa.

  With the ruling party in control of all major institutions such as the media, police and civil service, it is nearly impossible for any other political party to challenge its monopoly on power.

  The litigious nature of Singapore politics which saw a few opposition politicians being bankrupted by ruinous defamation lawsuits also deter potential candidates from joining the fray.

  As such, it is hardly surprising that the caliber and quality of opposition candidates are always a notch below the PAP’s though there is some improvement in the last election.

  The PAP’s accomplishment of transforming Singapore from a third to first world country within one generation is also difficult to match.

  While there are growing calls from the ground to have more opposition voices in parliament, most Singaporeans who only know the PAP government in their entire lives still prefer the status quo to remain.

  The recent reforms introduced by Prime Minister Lee to allow more non-PAP voices into parliament may work against the opposition, with or without the cooling-off day.

  Pragmatic Singaporeans will be more inclined to vote for the PAP knowing that they will still get the opposition candidate as the “best loser” in parliament to speak up for them.

  Mr Joshua seems to epitomize the mindset of ordinary Singaporeans in the last paragraph of his letter:

  “We should not have opposition parties for the sake of having them, but rather different voices from a cross-section of society. The move to have nearly one-fifth of non-PAP voices in Parliament is good enough. Too many cooks spoil the broth.”

  Despite its clear-cut advantage, it is obvious that the PAP still does not feel secure about its position given the emergence of the new media as a “wild card” which is capable of throwing up surprises on the eve of polling day.

• Atobe

  5 Dec 09, 09:28

   

  Each generation of political leadership seems to have its own way to fix the politics that will advantage the incumbents, while putting the opposition in a fix.

  In 1962, LKY fixed the opposition voices to merger with Malaysia - he pushed through a Referendum that allowed Citizens to vote on three choices "for merger into a new state of Malaysia" - all on his terms, and nothing to allow for "rejection to merger".

   

  From 1963 through 1999, the electoral systems was tweaked constantly to make the existing political sitituation from bad to worst, and to further handicap the political fortunes of the opposition parties.

  Singapore's Parliamentary System of representative government grew in size from 51 seats in 1963 to 75 in 1983. 

  By 1999 there were 84 members of Parliament, and after the 2006 general election - the Constitution was amended to allow for 1 NCMP and 9 NMPs.

   

  In 1988, GCT introduced the GRC system with a size of 3 constituencies grouped into one, and allowed the political party with the largest number of votes from a GRC to be declared the winner. This allowed a weaker candidate to enter Parliament even if it had lost the vote in its constituency.

  The GRC grew in size, from a GRC with 3 constituencies, now we see a size of up to 6 electoral wards - AND requiring a hefty election deposit for a group of 6 that will amount to S$81,000 (or S$13,500 per candidate).

  The Election Deposit had begun with a very low fee of only $100 in the 1960s, and was increased to add more burden onto the Opposition Parties - even as strict rules were made to hamper Singaporean donations to political parties.

  ‘In 2006, GCT admitted that the GRC is a method to enable new PAP candidate to win elections easily’ (*1) 

   

  Now in 2009, it is the turn of LHL to tweak the election system further to advantage the PAP and to handicap the Opposition Party even further.

   

  Singaporeans will have to reclaim the political space for ourselves, and not allow any politicians in power to affect the level playing field that should remain for our benefit.

   

   

• tan reborn

  5 Dec 09, 11:27

  The treason of reason

  Saturday, 5 December 2009, 11:18 am | 0 views

  Read: Media’s silence on Yong Vui Kong a national shame

  Khairulanwar Zaini

  Make no mistake about where the ‘cooling off’ period is coming from: a psychological gerrymandering to serve the PAP’s advantage. But that advantage goes beyond imposing their ideological hegemony through the mainstream media or insidiously undermining the potential mobilizing power of the internet.

  What the ‘cool off’ does is to canonize the rhetoric of rationality – to disable voters from choosing anything but the PAP, the very embodiment of reason. For what are the opposition but emotional rabble-rousers? Screaming nonsense and tripe, inspiring tempers and rousing passions? What are they indeed, when compared the staid, calm, rational, reasonable men in white?
  The call for ‘disengagement and reflection’ serves therefore as a convenient foil for the PAP to declare: calm down, be rational, and vote us.

  The appeal to reason plays into the PAP’s hand – sterilized and devoid of emotions, citizens will make an informed choice. So they tell us: keep in check those fierce passions! bridle in the tempers! and so pay tribute to the PAP’s imperialism of reason. This will indubitably be (re)affirmed by a compliant media, purveying the soi-disant myth of the incumbent’s hyperrationalism.

  But are informed choices the ones borne out of pure reason? Emotions, far from being a vile consideration, are the key to decision theory. Without emotions, our ability to make decisions becomes disabled. Writing of a neurological study of patients whose emotional faculties were impaired (but logical capacity very much intact), psychology professor Jonathan Haidt found that patients deprived of distractive emotions did not make better ‘rational’ decisions. Instead, they failed to make any decision at all, because ‘in the absence of feeling they see little reason to pick one or the other’. In the absence of emotions, people become disempowered.

  With the suppression of emotions, in the rule galvanized by pure reason, PAP becomes the power – an eternal, self-affirming, self-perpetuating power.

  Nations, at their very heart are constituted by politics and engendered by emotions. The American thinker Emerson identified that a nation is birthed when ‘a community of people … feel that they belong together’. There is no objective reason for a nation to exist; it thrives on ideas, myths, passions. Emotions. The triumph of rationality is the defeat of a nation.

  When rationality triumphs, Singapore ceases to exist: rational Singapore is the Potemkin village. But the PAP will flourish. Without our emotions, our passions, our dreams, Singapore becomes nothing and the PAP becomes everything.

  The appeal to reason strengthens and solidifies the PAP’s position. The ‘cooling off’ period disguises their new lifeline: pandering the myth of rationality after their sweet promises of prosperity and the lullabies of fear have lost their traction.

  It depoliticizes further a society already lacking in political option, shoehorning the PAP as the only legitimate, viable and reasonable party available to rational voters. See the real danger for what it is: the ‘cooling off’ period is not about the control of information, but the subliminal disabling of human agency and choice.

  It elevates rationality as though it were the only variable that matters, pouring askance to emotions. All heart may make us foolish, but no heart makes us empty. We see an incipient groundswell of resentment in the defiant promises to maintain the heat on ‘cooling day’ through the internet. The battle however will not be won at this frontier, which has always been beyond the ineluctable clutches of the PAP. Victory lies in damning rationality and keeping alive our emotions.

  This city may be mechanical, but the people need not be. Indeed, the people must not be: they must breathe life into her heart, invest emotions in her sinews, infuse passion into her bloodstream. We have seen the corruptible ramifications upon our humanity when reason alone prevails: the Disneyland with the rational death penalty, generous salary scales as reasonable incentivization, economic rationalization to deny the minimum wage. And now, reason will allow the PAP to perpetuate and lock its legacy. It is not sufficient that we vote the opposition for checks and balances, or some other rational consideration, for it only serves to validate the  PAP’s myth of pure reason. We need to vote the opposition because we feel in our hearts, with our hearts, that the time for change is due.

  Sometimes, ‘all fact, no heart’ does inflict real damage upon people. Particularly when a country has grown on nothing but facts and reason till it forgets how to be humane. How to be human. How to feel. How to love our country. How to love ourselves.

  ***
  The rhetoric of rationality that spins the ‘cooling off’ period as reasonable (and therefore good) has also concealed the relative ease of electoral amendments: the PAP’s cloak of reason quietly undermines fair play – we need to ‘cool off’, we need to calm down, hence we introduce a rule that ultimately benefits us.

  The philosophical elegance of elections lies in its privileging of pure procedural justice. The victor is not required of anything other than to win by the rules. Legitimacy is ultimately vested in the proper adherence to procedure, and how effective would it be if one could subvert the rules yet maintain legitimacy. Since the PAP is only required to win by the rules, they undertake to amend and revise the rules with impunity. All while shamelessly couching these changes as political liberalization. Deftly done, with one eye on legitimacy, and the other on perpetual incumbency.

  We can emotively discern that that justice could not and should not be the advantage of the stronger. The PAP can muster a formidable assembly of cogent arguments, but we can intuitively discover its verisimilitude and perceive how these arbitrary changes of the rules (however benevolently cloaked) are unfair.

  And we should remember at the ballot box these impulses. How unfair, how deceitful, how cowardly the PAP is. And how the PAP should be reminded of their transgressions, in that hard and only way that political parties will ever learn.

  ***
  ‘Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them’. – David Hume

  It is imperative that we turn the PAP’s sword upon itself: on ‘cooling day’, stiffen resolve and anger. On ‘cooling day’, hear out reason but let our hearts prevail. We owe it to Singapore that we awaken our emotions and subordinate reason. We owe it to ourselves to oust the mechanical clunks of rationality that plagues our lives and decisions. We owe it to our children to subvert this dystopia of power disguised as pure reason.

  Remember Hume. Remember the blunders. Remember the empty myth of reason. Remember a Singapore of heart.

  (Middle and last photo courtesy of PeoplePowerTayo and Wilfred Wong)

• tan reborn

  5 Dec 09, 17:28

  Blogger says he will not observe “cooling-off” period

  Thursday, 3 December 2009, 1:38 pm | 555 views

  Andrew Loh

  “I will let everyone know right now that I will not only post news reports but also my political opinions on my blog on the day before, and on the “cooling-off” day itself,” blogger and activist, Mr Seelan Palay says on his blog here. “I will post images and logos of the political parties and figures that I support and will blog about who I voted for and why,” he adds.

  Mr Seelan, 25, has been involved in public protests for various causes since 2006, including the abolition of the death penalty and the Internal Security Act, demonstrating outside the Ministry of Manpower office in support of Burmese nationals, and conducting a one-man, 5-day hunger-strike at the Malaysian embassy calling for the release of the Hindraf detainees in that country.

  He explains to The Online Citizen that his latest blog posting is not an act of defiance or protest. “What’s wrong with saying who I voted for? I am even using my real name. There is no reason why I shouldn’t blog about anything at anytime.”

  He feels that the recommended “cooling-off” day or period made by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong does not address the “fundamental issues” of what Mr Seelan calls “unjust laws and regulations”. PM Lee said he hoped that netizens will observe the “spirit” of the proposal. Citing the exclusion of the mainstream media or “news reports” from the proposed rule, Mr Seelan feels this is neither justified nor fair. “The mainstream media is controlled by the [PAP government].” He says he might have considered accepting the proposal if Singapore had a plurality of independent media and news outlets. Since this is not the case, bloggers and netizens should not be curbed in expressing their views online during the elections, he says.

  PM Lee said he wanted the 24-hour “cooling-off” period so that voters would have time to calm down and be rational when they go to the polling booth to cast their votes. But to Mr Seelan, it is the People’s Action Party (PAP) which has been irrational all these years. He cites the detention and imprisonment of opposition members and the closing down of independent newspapers in Singapore as examples. “Why should I observe [something] coming from someone who is irrational? I am talking about the party he represents and the system [it] has put in place,” he says. “The entire election system is grounded on irrationality.”

  What of the fear of public disorder from the highs of electioneering, as MP for Aljunied GRC, Mr Zainul Abidin, expressed in the Straits Times on 2 Dec? Mr Zainul had cited the 1997 incident in Cheng San GRC where he said opposition supporters nearly caused an incident of “public disorder” when the results were announced and the opposition Workers’ Party team had lost. “I don’t think one incident can be claimed as disorder,” Mr Seelan says. “This should not prevent bloggers and others from sharing their views.”

  In the elections of 2006, the government had, just before the hustings, banned podcastings and said that while “individual bloggers can discuss politics, [they] have to register with the Media Development Agency if they persistently promote political views,” the then-Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts, Balaji Sadasivan, was reported as having said. To Mr Seelan, however, such means of control do not work. “Instinctively and naturally,” he explains, “people will post what they think.” He noted that bloggers virtually ignored the ban on podcasting in 2006.  “In a country which is so restricted, online is where we can actually speak our minds. We have this space to ourselves and even this they want to control.”

  When asked why he is openly declaring that he will not observe the new rule, if and when it comes into effect, he explains that he wants to “set the tone”. While websites and blogs such as The Online Citizen, the Singapore Democractic Party, Temasek Review and Sgpolitics have given their views on the issue, no one has said if they will observe the 24-hour silence online, Mr Seelan says. “I urge all Singaporean bloggers to join me,” he appeals on his blog, “because we have a right to post and share our opinions, political or not, on our personal blogs at any time.”

• Atobe

  6 Dec 09, 01:26

   

  In July 2008, the following is an abstract of a research into the Singapore Election strategy adopted by the PAP, which caused the ethnic polarization at one point in time in the political history of Singapore 

   

   

  ‘Election Strategy and Ethnic Politics in Singapore’ (*1) 

   According to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s electoral system is essentially representative and does not suffer from significant ethnic conflict.

  Opposition leaders, however, denounce legislative elections as unfair and claim that Singapore’s ethnic minorities disagree politically with the Chinese-dominated People’s Action Party (PAP).

  This essay aims to test both of these hypotheses empirically, using freely available electoral and public opinion data.

  Logistic regression of the 1968-2006 parliamentary election results by constituency indicates that the PAP government did create Group Representation Constituencies in 1988 so as to eliminate districts that had voted disproportionately for the opposition in 1984.

  Analysis using Gary King’s method of ecological inference suggests that ethic polarization between Chinese and Malays was moderately high in the 1976 election, peaked in 1988, and was minimal in 2006. Indians, meanwhile, appear to have voted with the Chinese in all three elections.

  A parallel cross-sectional, logistic regression of the 2002 Singapore subset of the World Values Survey, however, has Indian respondents being slightly less likely to admit to dissatisfaction with the government and indicates that being Malay does not make one more willing to express such dissatisfaction.

  These empirical results thus cast doubt on the extent to which Singapore’s elections have been truly free, fair, and devoid of ethnic tension.

  The findings also suggest that young, middle-class, highly educated Chinese have replaced working-class Malays as the greatest challenge to continued PAP dominance. 

   

   

   

   

• tan reborn

  7 Dec 09, 05:48

  ‘Cooling off’ does not mean ‘no talking’

  Thursday, 3 December 2009, 4:49 pm | 87 views

  Fang Shihan

  The proposed policing of the internet to disallow political campaigning one day before polling day has seemed to create a perception that any form of political talk will be disallowed. It has also generated a fear among internet users that any form of political discussion online will be dealt with a heavy hand.

  While PM Lee is right to say that the internet is a grey area, the truth is, it is not. The internet is a tool for communication for most, a space for discussion and a space for all forms of articulated thought including political campaigning. The internet is a rainbow with a minority of extremists from all sides and a majority of moderates lying right in the middle.

  It is the policing of the internet that is truly murky and this is what has, like always, generated a substantial amount of fear for the persons involved; even for silent readers of internet content lying outside the constraints of the proposed policy. In this severely unbalanced equation, the bureaucracy seems to have the onus of clamping down on whatever they deem ‘political campaigning’, leaving the groups or persons involved no recourse to proving otherwise before action is taken against them. In other words, can PM Lee guarantee that this new regulation will not provide for excessive constraint on genuine non-partisan, citizen-driven debate?

  Though general internet perception may indicate otherwise, these rules bind only a small proportion of content producers – the party websites and their easily identified proxies. Like it or not, most Singaporean voters relying on internet content are intelligent enough to smell a PAP or opposition proxy a mile away. The question to ask is, will the existence of proxies affect the perceived integrity of socio-political non-party websites including TOC?

  PM Lee seems to indicate that only websites of political parties will be regulated heavily, since news reporting on the elections will not be affected. It is the spirit and principle of cooling-off, the spirit of disengaging and reflecting that will guide the publication of content on that day. Socio-political websites, if they are truly non-partisan, will not need to keep silent.

  Skeptics have also pointed out that this proposed ruling could be advantageous with the party that has control over the mainstream media. While the internet will be subjected to murky regulations, the mainstream media effectively has a monopoly of how they want to cover the news. Remember the 2006 elections when overwhelming attendance during Worker’s Party rallies was blogged about extensively, but not mentioned at all in the mainstream media? Imagine how news coverage of the 2010 elections would be like, if citizen journalists ceased to blog.

  Yet this skepticism is unwarranted. In PM Lee’s language, it is the ‘spirit’ that matters. If the spirit of the proposed law is to aid rational choice, it should also allow for the reading of news from all perspectives, not just the mainstream media speaking with a PAP voice.

  This leads to another question. If the principle behind the rule is to promote rational choice, does this rule truly then promote rational choice? Though policy-makers may feel that less disorder and no emotions leads to an increased chance for rational choice, they have missed out the unintended consequences of more policing. Self-censorship generated from uncertain regulations (and OB markers) coupled with a historical legacy of excessive media policing, has led to a climate where rational choice is impossible with more regulations.

  Rational choice is not made by meditating alone in the corner, facing a wall, and talking to no one but yourself. In a society where voters have little time to digest every bit of political news before campaigning day, reflection is most effective through a dialogue and not disengagement. When dialogue in an IT age takes place over the internet due to its ease of communication, information access, and information sharing, clamping down on that space deprives the voter of a crucial thought process.

  In principle, imposing silence will not lead to rational reflection as all sides of the argument must be heard, digested, and processed for it to happen. In practice, clamping down on online non-political society, including sociopolitical blogs, will do nothing but promote ‘emotional voting’ based on fear. Worse still, if it incites a reaction and voters irrationally turn against the establishment out of anger.

  Participants in online political debate have little to worry about under this new rule. Though skeptics may argue that excessive policing has happened before and will happen again, one cannot deny that there could possibly be a genuine intention for the very rational, pragmatic government to promote a rational voting populace. If rational choice were to be the outcome of the electoral game, the ruling party must let political debate go on even under the proposed new rule.

  (Photos from http://www.electoralgeography.com and Yawning Bread)

• tan reborn

  7 Dec 09, 05:55

  

  A probable alliance

  By Kelvin Teo

  Published: August 29, 2009

   

  SINGAPORE – An interesting development in the Singapore political scene took place when veteran opposition leader Mr Chiam See Tong from the Singapore Democratic Alliance approached Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam of the Reform Party and both parties discussed the possibility of forming a joint GRC team to compete in the next General Elections. The next General Elections could be Mr Chiam’s swansong, and understandably so, given the fact that the latter has been suffering from ill-health of late. Just last year, he suffered a mild stroke.

  The capture of a GRC has eluded the opposition thus far ever since its inception. And if this collaboration comes through, it will be the historic first time the leaders of two opposition parties collaborate and contest a GRC. This will bode well for the image of the opposition. The past conflicts between members of the opposition has provided cannon fodder for the media establishment to portray the opposition as a dis-united bunch. If the unity of the Reform Party and Singapore Democratic Alliance comes to fruition, that will send out a powerful message on the unity of the opposition in their venture to capture a GRC.

  In all likelihood, if Kenneth and Chiam were to join forces, they would probably be contesting a GRC in the Northeast zone, where there is substantial support for the opposition on the ground. The money will be on Jalan Besar GRC, the GRC which the SDA has targeted since 2001.

  The nitty-gritty of the alliance and the choice of GRC to contest aside, it is always tempting to slip into fantasy mode and imagine an opposition dream team contesting in a GRC. No prizes for guessing but this dream team would comprise the secretary-generals of all the current opposition parties, with Miss Sylvia Lim being thrown in for good measure. However, we want to be realistic and ponder upon the most likely sequence of alliance to happen given the current circumstances. One of the most tempting alliances would be the prospect of Kenneth allying with the Workers’ Party team at Aljunied GRC. With due respect to Chiam, an alliance involving Kenneth and the Workers’ Party team at Aljunied GRC will have better odds of the opposition gaining a GRC than an alliance with Chiam.

  From the image standpoint, such an alliance will bear huge significance given the storied past involving Kenneth’s father, Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam (JBJ), and the Workers’ Party, especially the circumstances in which JBJ left the party. In a certain sense, the alliance between Kenneth and the Worker’s Party team can be seen as a re-unification process. There will be no doubt that JBJ supporters living at Aljunied will voice their support for Kenneth through the polls.

  As far as the opposition is concerned, Aljunied GRC was the best performing GRC during the last elections, garnering 43.91% of the votes to PAP’s 56.09%. *Mathematically, all that is required is a 6.19% swing in votes for Aljunied GRC to land into the opposition’s hands (56.09% – 6.19% = 49.9%, 43.91% + 6.19% = 50.1%). This swing will hinge on economic factors, i.e. performance of the PAP government in tackling the economic crisis and tending to the interests of the bottom 20% of the income earners, and the minority group to a certain extent.

  PAP’s victory at Aljunied GRC in 2006 was attributed to a swing in Malay votes, and thus, it is possible that the PAP may use this card again. In Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s reply to NMP Viswa’s call for racial equality, Lee went on mention the need to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and he emphasized on the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests of the Malays. Perhaps, a slight show of PAP’s trump cards, we don’t know for sure.

  Thus, what is essential at Aljunied GRC is a strong minority candidate to appeal to the minority voters, and Kenneth seems to have what it takes. With the economic expertise of the former* hedge fund manager, the team will be better poised to tackle bread and butter issues, which will further swing votes to its cause. With his presence, the 6.19% margin to swing the results of the elections in favor of the opposition can be achieved, that’s assuming those who voted for the opposition in 2006 will continue to do so at the next General Elections.

  Of course, contemplating an alliance involving Kenneth and the Workers’ Party team at Aljunied is on the brink of fantasy. But then again, you wouldn’t want to bet against it happening either. Either way, regardless of the alliance between Kenneth and Chiam, or possibly the Workers’ Party team contesting Aljunied GRC, such unity will always bode well for the opposition.

  *Edits to the mathematical calculation of vote swing. A minimum of 6.19% is required to achieve a percentage of 50.1% in favor of the opposition
  
  *Edits: Kenneth Jeyaretnam is a former hedge fund manager. He set up and managed funds from 2004 to 2008, according to his Wikipedia page

• tan reborn

  7 Dec 09, 09:16

  Friday, December 04, 2009

  Cooling day for RATIONAL decisions..

   

  You know the election is coming when they find ways to tweak the rules like that "cooling off day" they added. I really don't know what to make of it. Perhaps they are afraid some report about the next pay hike for ministers or next GST hike will leak out or get fabricated on the Internet one day before voting day and cause votes to swing to the opposition. The Worker's Party said it would be possible for all sorts of (positive) news and explanations from civil servants (who have become not independent) to get aired on that day to swing the votes to the PAP. Mr. Brown in his latest comedic podcast speculates soothing music being played over the airwaves and "Men-in-white" propaganda going on TV that day. The Opposition already has so much stacked against it including the short minimum 9-day campaign period to get their message out, how the boundaries will be drawn, lack of (positive) coverage on the state controlled media and the pork barrel tactics of estate upgrading and handling out of New Singapore Shares just before the elections....so what is the big deal about "cooling day"? The Opposition already has so many hurdles to clear, one more in the form of this "cooling day" just add to the numerous difficulties and the unlevel playing field they should be used too by now.
  
  The PAP claims that the purpose of the cooling day is for voters to think rationally before they vote. I find it strange ...because the PAP has this habit of shocking us into voting for them like saying this country will sink without them, that the opposition is full of flyby night shady characters, that Chee SJ is a gangster, that our homes will become dilapidated and worthless, our daughters will become maids if we vote for the opposition....last elections, they said that the Worker's Party manifesto was full timebombs and poison. It is all threat and fear to get us to vote for the PAP so why in the world do they want rationality? Rationality can only work against them! So I don't buy the rationality reason for the cooling day.
  
  ... We don't have to wait for the election cooling day to think rationally - we can start right now....
  
  I would like to ask Singaporeans this RATIONAL question right now:
  
  Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?
  
  Another RATIONAL question would be:
  
  What are 5 things that PAP govt has done that benefits Singaporeans in the past 4 yrs?
  
  Yet another few RATIONAL questions:
  
  Does the peformance of our leaders justify their salaries?
  
  Do you feel greater financial security today than you did 4 years ago?
  
  Given the increasingly complex globalised economy which forces tradeoffs in policy making, wouldn't it be rational for Singaporeans many of whom see their interests being traded off in favor of big business to want more diverse views to be represented in parliament?
  
  What is the worse that can happen if the PAP loses 10-20 seats?
  
  Anyway, will people really miss those part time PAP MPs with little to say on critical life-affecting issues?
  
  Everyone in Singapore should think rationally about how they should vote. I will definitely spend the 24 hour cooling period to reflect on what the PAP has done in the past 4 years and I'll post my thoughts rationally and coolly on this blog so that everyone can rationalise what they want to do with their vote and what they want for Singapore, themselves and their children in the long term.

  Diary of A Singaporean Mind
• angel7030

  7 Dec 09, 10:28

  Comment

  I had spent 2 years in PAP nursery home, then another 2 years with PAP Joo Chiat branch Kindergarden, 4 years in total, i am with PAP, so, do you think we need a 24 hrs cooling mind, when we had already spent 4 years of PAP in our mind.

  Thank you

• Short Ninja

  7 Dec 09, 11:14

  Originally posted by angel7030:

  Comment

  I had spent 2 years in PAP nursery home, then another 2 years with PAP Joo Chiat branch Kindergarden, 4 years in total, i am with PAP, so, do you think we need a 24 hrs cooling mind, when we had already spent 4 years of PAP in our mind.

  Thank you

  Go put dry ice in your brain lah.

• angel7030

  7 Dec 09, 11:15

  oh!

• Atobe

  7 Dec 09, 11:21

  Originally posted by angel7030:

  Comment

  I had spent 2 years in PAP nursery home, then another 2 years with PAP Joo Chiat branch Kindergarden, 4 years in total, i am with PAP, so, do you think we need a 24 hrs cooling mind, when we had already spent 4 years of PAP in our mind.

  Thank you

   

  What has its 4 years of pre-school exposure with the PAP kindergarten got to do with the 24 hours cooling period ?

  This is another imbecilic idiocy displayed by the Taiwanese 'hum' - who willl insist on posting its irrelevant replies to draw the flow of discussion to itself, simply to achieve its orgasmic pleasure in getting its required attention as an "Attention Seeking Whore".

   

• angel7030

  7 Dec 09, 11:25

  Originally posted by Atobe:

   

  What has its 4 years of pre-school exposure with the PAP kindergarten got to do with the 24 hours cooling period ?

  This is another imbecilic idiocy displayed by the Taiwanese 'hum' - who willl insist on posting its irrelevant replies to draw the flow of discussion to itself, simply to achieve its orgasmic pleasure in getting its required attention as an "Attention Seeking Whore".

   

  I mean how to cool off and think when our mind is alway PAP, I still remember that handsome male principal of PAP kindergarden telling us, "alway remember, Majulah Singapore, Majulah PAP".

• Atobe

  7 Dec 09, 11:42

  Originally posted by angel7030:

  I mean how to cool off and think when our mind is alway PAP, I still remember that handsome male principal of PAP kindergarden telling us, "alway remember, Majulah Singapore, Majulah PAP".

   

  The Taiwanese 'hum' could have taken a piece of its imbecilic wisdom and remain silent or refuse itself to broadcast its ignorance with its daily insistence to publish its flippantly irrelevant and irrerevant replies in this Speaker's Corner.

  Is anyone 'interested in its position that wouldn't bring much new thoughts even as it attempt to hit the front page in some sensational ways'  ?

  If only the "Attention Seeking Whore" inside the Taiwanese 'hum' will learn to 'be careful' and take its own imbecilic advise and "Just SHUT UP".

    

  Originally posted by angel7030:

  Well, he has the right to remain silent or refuse the interview, he should known the media well, they are not interested in his position, that wouldn't bring much news and front page sensational in the media, his brother and late father is the ultimate news the reporters wanted, he should be careful. Just Shut up

• Herzog_Zwei

  7 Dec 09, 11:55

  Originally posted by angel7030:

  Comment

  I had spent 2 years in PAP nursery home, then another 2 years with PAP Joo Chiat branch Kindergarden, 4 years in total, i am with PAP, so, do you think we need a 24 hrs cooling mind, when we had already spent 4 years of PAP in our mind.

  Thank you

  
  So? Are you a robot or a human being?

• angel7030

  7 Dec 09, 15:13

  Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:

  
  So? Are you a robot or a human being?

  
  I am just like you, a human operating a cyborg net

• Atobe

  8 Dec 09, 08:01

  Originally posted by angel7030:

  
  I am just like you, a human operating a cyborg net

  
  You are at your best when you talk with your clitoris as your tongue that wag uselessly in a 'hum' that serve as your mouth - all displayed to simply get your daily orgasmic fix as an "Attention Seeking Whore".

  Is it any surprise that the irrelevant stuff secreted in your Taiwanese 'hum' will flow so freely as you arouse yourself with your self-consuming vanity to attract attention ?

  Try douching your Taiwanese 'hum' to clear your brain if you cannot learn to take your own advise to simply "SHUT UP" when you have nothing to say.

   

   

• Short Ninja

  8 Dec 09, 09:13

  Originally posted by angel7030:

  
  I am just like you, a human operating a cyborg net

  
  You are a CCB but then again dono whether you got one ar not?

• Herzog_Zwei

  8 Dec 09, 10:15

  Originally posted by Short Ninja:

  
  You are a CCB but then again dono whether you got one ar not?

  
  She doesn't know what the hell is she.

• xtreyier

  8 Dec 09, 10:25

  Originally posted by Short Ninja:

  
  You are a CCB but then again dono whether you got one ar not?

  
  Hey bro, does one need to use foul lingo and labels on others, labels which were never admitted, to put one's point across?

  It's our words and reasoning on a post that is considered on its own merits or the lack of it, not the strength of the vulgar lingo used.

  But then, it is your choice and your right to use as you see fit which determines your perceptions and maturity.

  I only wondered why you would stoop to such levels, no matter what the provocation. for freedom of speech is for all.

  Nothing personal, and I apologise if i had hurt your feelings.