Been spending some time with a friend who was meant to get married last weekend, up until the moment he uncovered his fiancee's indiscretions just a fortnight previously, after she'd been acting strangely.
It made me sad to hear him telling me his story. He wasn't a blubbering mess, he's far too stoic for that. And perhaps that time had come and gone, now it was just dispassionate, non-linear thoughts that needed to be spoken.
"...in hindsight perhaps could have seen it... she didn't tell me things because she felt it wasn't necessary... it made me wonder..."
"...she said it wasn't planned..."
"...glad I found out now, and not after the wedding..."
"...her parents had..."
"...she'd been on the receiving end..."
"...i'm the sort of guy who, if I taste something bad, wouldn't want other people to suffer it..."
"...gave her space... trust"
"...I could have. I had opportunities to cheat too; there were many...But I didn't..."
"Why? Why would anyone do something like this to someone else?"
We're guys. We hold our drinks and don't look each other in the eye. Guys don't touch each other, or hug. We just bludgeon each other with thoughts, and words. That's male comfort.
I told him mine thoughts. I told him I empathized.
"These people are selfish; they don't think like us.... it boggles the mind, but awareness doesn't equate to morality; they know what's right and wrong... they just don't choose like us. It's not much comfort, but whatever tears are being shed now are being shed for her, not for you."
It pained me, to see this man - this good man brought to his knees for the simple crime of treating someone too well, giving too much, trusting too much. It pained me to know that the other protaganist in the story was sobbing her eyes out - not because of how great an injustice she had done him, but because she had lost something good from her life, and she knew it. She wanted him back, but Thank God he had enough common sense and fortitude to walk away.
******
The analogy holds true to a country as well. Agent J was half-kidding during the election runup that the people and government were very much akin to spurned lovers. The people were accusing the Powers of not loving them anymore, of cheating on them. The Powers were responding with defiance, denial and anger instead of contrition. They were driving the people further away.
Then there was an abrupt U turn - which the Powers are becoming so prone to as time passes, and suddenly the tears had dried up -- all those tears in the runup so at odds with the words being spoken denying all culpability -- suddenly the tears had dried up but the words had changed. Sorry seems to be the hardest word?
Why are the people so upset? Perhaps precisely because they (Powers) don't tell us things they don't think are relevant to us... a maid is murdered in a watertank and the immediate response is to conceal the truth for 24 hours, ("maintenance works!") while people haplessly go on drinking the water, because a bit of maintenance can't possibly be bad for them...
... I think those people would have a very good case for a lawsuit.
Precisely because we have given them - or rather, been taught to, been conditioned to give them all our trust. We work to support the country, and government - exactly like in a relationship. Yet now the people are beginning to feel that trust has been violated. Perhaps as truths of our slightly foggy past begin to emerge, perhaps as the pieces fall into place and the youth begin to find out just why the world calls us a police state -- perhaps that trust will seem to have been violated more and more. The problem with truth is that it always comes out in the end.
Perhaps they're just disaffected. And yes, the disaffected are dangerous; the last thing we need is anarchy and the government is right to fear that.
This isn't a good place we're in now.
And I blame myopia. The government of old that we're all falling over ourselves to heap praise on for steering us out of the dark ages - they created this situation. Deliberately. Perhaps they didn't bank on fear dissipating with increasing ignorance. Perhaps they didn't take into consideration how much people want the truth, or how much they want for the collective, that they are willing to risk sacrifices. Perhaps they didn't count on people being nationalistic, and caring for the country.
But this is where we're at now. Let's not mince words. There was no clear mandate. There was a borderline victory across the board. And next time there is a real risk of everything being lost.
Let's stop pretending the people vociferously stamped their approval on the PAP. 60something percent majority when considering the trends of the past - think of it in terms of rugby. It's losing ground. Slowly but surely.
Change is needed to combat this. Very real change - deliberate, careful change that undoes the mistakes of the past without undoing the bootlaces of the country. Change that involves humility, and heartfelt apologies from those still around, and those exiting stage left, yet strength and resolve to keep moving forwards.
Courage is needed, to pardon those who have been wronged, and to undo the tweaks to the judiciary and elective processes that damage the country - that damage this country's international standing.
We want a first world country, not a first world government. We need salaries revised, not reviewed.
And yes, I appreciate that these things must come slowly, because otherwise too much face is lost, and the public may swing the wrong way. Governing a country is not easy.
But they must come, at the end of the day.
Or else all that happens is a breakup, and everything that was once special, and personal between parties becomes lost in the past, and irrelevant tomorrow. That's the way relationships go.
And tomorrow the people will have found a new partner - one that they are good with, that is good with them; that treats them with the respect they demand, that they can, in turn, respect.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
:(
Ok let's try to be fair.
She was working with a bad script, and probably some halfwit director was telling her how to act like, frankly, a retarded, beaming bimbo.
The things that disturb me:
1) This is a person who was trying to get into government? Most people with political aspirations would have turned this down... hell most people would have turned down the role, except a true blue camwhore. I mean... gag. That's a script? It just makes her look bad in so, so many ways - along with the rest of Singaporean women. (it's implied in the script.)
2) THIS is what our money goes into?!? I mean, this was funded by someone, right? Please tell me this was a private initiative. Please....
If it's publically funded, then what is the message they are trying to deliver? That rings are good? That getting engaged will make you smile vacuously into your palm like an impaired orang utan? Is THIS supposed to make the youth reproduce?!? NO WONDER OUR POPULATION IS DECLINING. People don't want to get married and raise families because they're afraid of turning into fucking retards!!!
I'm. So. Upset.
I know, I know. Take a chill pill, this is small potatoes compared to V Bala and his "I did not overspend, I just got the initial estimate wrong" thingie.
But the sad truth is - this is the tip of the iceberg.
Just the tip. What other f*****ing halfwit ideas came to fruitition because of the might is right thingie?
Nobody in their right mind would have funded this as a private initiative, I don't think. It just has no point, no message, and is bound to fail utterly and completely.
Can you imagine the committe that sat down together to dream up this script? I honestly can't.
I can't. Images of drooling ghouls with arrows sticking out their heads come to mind.
Why is it I fight tooth and nail to build medical devices or process improvements that are shot down because they're not "cost effective" -- but this kind of shit gets public spending?!?!?
Community Improvement?! I'll show you community improvement! Just let me at the people responsible for this..... and I'll improve them.
GAAAAAh.
And to top it off, the thing is badly shot. With bad equipment.
Compare it top right to the "fly by night 2005" video winner. That thing was done on the fly by an UNKNOWN team of directors and producers. With a VOLUNTEER non-actor cast. Today they're mini celebrities in their own right (nicholas chee and randy ang) for the sheer care they took, and the degree of perfection they required of their team. A meticulous eye for detail, for a simple video competition.
This "director" was hired. and PAID. with OUR MONEY. And he turned out THIS CRAP? And would it have killed them to use a proper, professional actress?!
Brave New World
So here is our brave new face of the government, selflessly drinking freshly dead maid water with great fortitude, to show the sheep that it's okay, it's all in your heads.
The fact that he does not keel over and die immediately afterwards is proof positive that the water is safe to drink, and this will, as the straits times put it, "soothe" the residents into behaving like sheep again instead of vaguely psychotic... hounds baying for blood.
I'm sorry, PAP. I'm really sorry.
This damages BG Lee's attempts to show us a brave, sensitive, empathic new-age Government, so much. It Pwns the New-PAP.
Deep breath.
Why? Because, Sir it exposes the mindset of whoever sent poor Vikram on this fool's errand (and you can see it written on his face... He's got "I can't believe I'm really doing this..." written all over his face. But well, he's the new guy so he gets to do the dirty work. And he's smart enough to know that the pipes are still contaminated; well, diluted now no doubt, but there'll still be traces of maid pee or whatever it was she released that turned the water foamy. Perhaps it's decomposing flesh. Who knows?
And predictably - to ANY F****ing halfwit, but apparently not the powers that be -- it didn't work.
I mean wouldn't you still be grossed out after this? YOU, PERSONALLY? Yes, you sir.
And the video doesn't follow the MP around to see if he gets Lao Sai later. It just ends with a thumbs up.
Hell maybe he puked it all out immediately afterwards. Most people would - the thought is revolting.
So now they're U-turning again and shutting down the water tank. After due consideration. After this token, stupid show of god knows what.
I'm sorry. I'm having a great deal of difficulty with this. The mindset still reeks of paternalism, and disconnection with the people.
I want to believe BG Lee, I really do. I want to believe he's a good man, with a good heart, with an unenviable task cast upon him. Perhaps he's just hampered by his team, who still think like retarded axe-men, instead of empathic, intelligent individuals. Who can't begin to START thinking "what would I think, if I was one of them?"
I'm not one of them. I don't live in HDB. And I'm thinking "THANK GOD I don't live in HDB" and "Those poor, poor people...." I mean imagine, a whole day worth of drinking water from the pipes because the residents committee didn't think it was relevant to tell them there was a dead woman sullying the pipes. It wasn't important to tell them. They weren't important enough to know. They didn't need to know.
So maybe nobody died (except the poor maid). But. UGHHHHhhhhh.
If I were Vikram I would sue. Honestly. :( All credit to the man for not rolling his eyes.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Inauguration of the Death Star
Original photo at MrBrown
...remove some of the masking, delete the hidden layer... HA. I thought so!
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Officer and Gentleman
Dear Yvonne Chia,
Think of this analogy. I was given a recruit who was assessed to have the potential to be a good soldier. The platoon had to capture a hill. The recruit came under a hail of bullets. As platoon leader, I had to protect him, even at the risk of my own life.
Am I being stubborn or deaf? Or did I not do the honourable thing expected of a platoon leader?
That the recruit could have been better prepared for the mission or be an older, more experienced recruit is a separate point. I am aware of the widespread unhappiness at sending this recruit to the platoon. But I would say, now that the recruit has survived the ordeal of battle, let him prove that he can be a good soldier…
Goh Chok Tong
Think of this analogy. I was given a recruit who was assessed to have the potential to be a good soldier. The platoon had to capture a hill. The recruit came under a hail of bullets. As platoon leader, I had to protect him, even at the risk of my own life.
Am I being stubborn or deaf? Or did I not do the honourable thing expected of a platoon leader?
That the recruit could have been better prepared for the mission or be an older, more experienced recruit is a separate point. I am aware of the widespread unhappiness at sending this recruit to the platoon. But I would say, now that the recruit has survived the ordeal of battle, let him prove that he can be a good soldier…
Goh Chok Tong
Wah. Really ah.
2011 vs 2006
Aljunied GRC: 56.1% to 45.3%, -10.8%
Jurong GRC*: 79.8% to 67.0%, – 12.8%
Tampines GRC: 68.5% to 57.2%, -11.3%
Joo Chiat SMC: 65.0% to 51.0%, -14.0%
East Coast GRC: 63.9% to 54.8%, -9.1%
Ang Mo Kio GRC: 66.1% to 69.3%, +3.2%
Bt Panjang SMC: 77.2% to 66.3%, -10.9%
Sembawang GRC: 76.7% to 63.9%, -12.8%
Pasir Ris Punggol GRC: 68.7% to 64.8%, -3.9%
looks like my share prices :(
Aljunied GRC: 56.1% to 45.3%, -10.8%
Jurong GRC*: 79.8% to 67.0%, – 12.8%
Tampines GRC: 68.5% to 57.2%, -11.3%
Joo Chiat SMC: 65.0% to 51.0%, -14.0%
East Coast GRC: 63.9% to 54.8%, -9.1%
Ang Mo Kio GRC: 66.1% to 69.3%, +3.2%
Bt Panjang SMC: 77.2% to 66.3%, -10.9%
Sembawang GRC: 76.7% to 63.9%, -12.8%
Pasir Ris Punggol GRC: 68.7% to 64.8%, -3.9%
looks like my share prices :(
Blueland vs Redland
(via Mr Brown)I, on the other hand think GRCs are important. Racial minorities are important. Their voices must be heard. We can never let enough of them into parliament.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Overnight Overlord
(A letter from a friend of a friend)
Dear Ms Tin,
The long and short of it is that the youth do not want you as their representative. No amount of hard work on the ground will reconcile you with the "me" generation, because they have identified in you everything they do NOT want in a leader - fairly or unfairly. Frankly, you should give up on that and focus on the people who seem to like you - the elderly. The elderly have need of a champion as well, especially in a greying society like ours. You will have much greater difficulty relating to them, because they are the generation that lived in a climate of fear, and it will be hard to make them open up to you, for real rather than token gestures of kindness for a little girl who reminds them of their grand-daughters. It might do you good to read up the archives of all that has been, so that you stand a chance of truly connecting with them.
The youth are looking for someone to be infatuated with - someone with a sparkling wit, impeccable humour and blinding intelligence. They need a hero to rebel against authority, or at least to show the old fogies how it's really done. It's much the same with women's rights - you don't put a man in charge.
Your opponent possessed some of these qualities and this is why she endeared herself to the youth: She was fiery and passionate and truly wanted to make a difference, and it showed in her eyes (even if all she stands for is sob stories and the underprivileged, and the sum total of her at present is bleeding heart naivety better suited for missionary work than politics). She could speak in tongues and the young will buy it tooth and nail, and call her intelligent to boot. Tough nuts, them's the breaks.
To be frank, even if you scrubbed the floors of the elderly for five years till your nails bled and your knees gave out, the best you can hope to achieve, as Mr Goh has kindly put it, is growth into a "good" MP. And let us not mince words, by good he means decent and passable. An MP that got the job done well enough, but not quite one for the history books.
The youth want a champion, someone they see as particularly exceptional. That's what the "me" generation is about, glaring, blinding exception. A windows blue screen of death in stark white. Ironically, they recognize George Yeo to have these talents, and that is why they are calling for him to return to parliament, at your expense.
Don't blame them - the youth have always been like this since time immemorial; our parents were like that as teenagers as were their parents parents. We outgrow it with maturity. We gain wisdom with age, and then we look to our leaders for other qualities - depth of thought, broadness of perception, clear, level-headed decision making that strive for balance, and optimality.
Perhaps you are not like them - perhaps you truly do not understand why your image was so catastrophically destroyed - not by a concerted effort from a malignant opposition, but by a unanimous unspoken vote of no-confidence. If you are not like these youth, then it stands to reason why you cannot represent them.
Mr Goh reiterates how the PAP wanted you, and therefore it is not your fault for the hatred that you now receive. The PAP has wanted many people, at different times, and some of them either declined, or waited till an opportune moment in the future.
You could have declined and told them what is apparent now - you were not ready. Had you had entered politics five years later I suspect that you would have had more intelligent things to say to the reporters (never, never say you have no opinion! ever on pain of death! watch how the other ministers couch their words to support the party line without actually exposing their happiness with the status quo!)
and more confidence with which to say them. You would have had more of an inkling what people really want from a leader, and you might actually have been able to be that leader. Oh yes, and please stop repeating yourself. You tend to make the same point at least twice during the course of an interview. It is very annoying. The same goes for sentence construction. Don't say things like "the good in this is that it is good", or "it was a totally totalitarian..." etc. Please take a moment to think before you speak.
I wish you well in your political career, and would be overjoyed to discover that there are hidden depths to you that the relentless barrage of interviews and rallies have failed to extract, and that you will make a meaningful, lasting contribution that did good for the people. It would be refreshing to see you earn your keep.
Know that in the time you spend growing into a passable member of parliament, your opponent will be growing as well. The onus on you is to outgrow her - not because elections are a popularity circus (which sadly they are) but because unlike Nicole, you have, as Mr Goh says, somehow "made it" (here I suppose he means you didn't get run over by a car crossing the street or get hit by a bolt of lightning from the heavens, since there really is no conceivable way otherwise for you to not "make it" in, barring a vote of no-confidence in SM Goh himself) and you are here now, holding the office that you do. You OWE it to the people to grow.
It is your duty, and your responsibility.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
The Symptoms
I remember when I was back in med school being approached to write something for the press. The details escape me - I was very busy trying to stay afloat in terms of work and beer - what I remember is how it was done: I was told to write something since I had been selected to receive the honour.
Not invited to contribute out of mutual goodwill, no recognition of my time and effot - just a statement that I was being given the honour. A bit like how HSBC now lords it over me; a story for another day when I have more time.
Naturally I told them to piss off and die - I wish. I think I just junked the email.
*****
Some time shortly after the U-turn in recruitment policy (doctor shortage, alamak) a task force was sent to recruit us from the UK.
I didn't know who those people were, except that they were old, slightly out of shape and bursting out of their suits.
About fifty of us showed up more out of curiosity than anything else; we were mostly from london and I guess we had the time to pop by.
What transpired was a lecture on how it was our duty to come back to Singapore, how we were beholden. We were told how much shinier everything was here, how much better equipped it is, and how, above all, we owed it to them to come back.
Most of us were incredulous that this bunch of strangers would presume to come out here and play the Duty Honour Country card - was there a war on that we had missed? Was there any conceivable reason at all that we should give up what we had - and we had a lot, working and studying in london. A lot.
Our president of the SMSS (singapore medical students society) was a very brazen, blunt (and sometimes uncouth. heh) individual. He asked what our pay would be like.
The person hemmed and hawed and beat about the bush. E. asked him what our calls would be like. More of the same. We started chipping in and asking for details. None were forthcoming. It became increasingly apparent that they hadn't come back here to entice us home. They had come expecting us to fall at their feet in adulation.
We left the hall that day convinced never to return if we could help it.
I couldn't help it. There were extenuating circumstances.
I pray the rest of my friends and colleagues who remained there, and overseas are well.
These are increasingly uncertain times we're living with, here in Singapore, but working conditions have improved somewhat, and perhaps with time the rest of the problems will get sorted out. I wouldn't recommend coming back right now, but if you need to I can provide specific details should you require them; leave a comment.
The point of this post is that sometimes people in power - or the people who represent those in power - forget what is really, really important to those on the ground. Their ivory towers grow so tall that stepping out for a jaunt is already, in their opinions, three quarters the job done.
Sometimes they think that walking the ground is akin to reaching out, and they are puzzled when the ground rejects them... when in truth all they have to do is treat the ground like fellow human beings who deserve to be listened to, and made to feel like equals - instead of dirt under their feet, or on their hands to be washed away.
Not invited to contribute out of mutual goodwill, no recognition of my time and effot - just a statement that I was being given the honour. A bit like how HSBC now lords it over me; a story for another day when I have more time.
Naturally I told them to piss off and die - I wish. I think I just junked the email.
*****
Some time shortly after the U-turn in recruitment policy (doctor shortage, alamak) a task force was sent to recruit us from the UK.
I didn't know who those people were, except that they were old, slightly out of shape and bursting out of their suits.
About fifty of us showed up more out of curiosity than anything else; we were mostly from london and I guess we had the time to pop by.
What transpired was a lecture on how it was our duty to come back to Singapore, how we were beholden. We were told how much shinier everything was here, how much better equipped it is, and how, above all, we owed it to them to come back.
Most of us were incredulous that this bunch of strangers would presume to come out here and play the Duty Honour Country card - was there a war on that we had missed? Was there any conceivable reason at all that we should give up what we had - and we had a lot, working and studying in london. A lot.
Our president of the SMSS (singapore medical students society) was a very brazen, blunt (and sometimes uncouth. heh) individual. He asked what our pay would be like.
The person hemmed and hawed and beat about the bush. E. asked him what our calls would be like. More of the same. We started chipping in and asking for details. None were forthcoming. It became increasingly apparent that they hadn't come back here to entice us home. They had come expecting us to fall at their feet in adulation.
We left the hall that day convinced never to return if we could help it.
I couldn't help it. There were extenuating circumstances.
I pray the rest of my friends and colleagues who remained there, and overseas are well.
These are increasingly uncertain times we're living with, here in Singapore, but working conditions have improved somewhat, and perhaps with time the rest of the problems will get sorted out. I wouldn't recommend coming back right now, but if you need to I can provide specific details should you require them; leave a comment.
The point of this post is that sometimes people in power - or the people who represent those in power - forget what is really, really important to those on the ground. Their ivory towers grow so tall that stepping out for a jaunt is already, in their opinions, three quarters the job done.
Sometimes they think that walking the ground is akin to reaching out, and they are puzzled when the ground rejects them... when in truth all they have to do is treat the ground like fellow human beings who deserve to be listened to, and made to feel like equals - instead of dirt under their feet, or on their hands to be washed away.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Sorry seems to be the hardest word
Feverish. Been studying for hours and hours and hours now.
Thanks to departmental stupidity I enrolled in a masters which was completely not what the department thought it would be. Thanks to monumental personal stupidity I decided to go-ahead with it. So here I am, on the brink of the great unknown, like a lamb to the... exam tomorrow.
So tired.
It's the eve of the elections.
Regardless of what happens, change looks... possible.
******
Imagine a training incident. A big one. Hypothetical.
A sergeant brutalizes a recruit - hmm where are you sgt Y*** from my NS days, with all your buttstrokes to the helmet during range, and all your vicious CCBs? -- and something bad happens, say the recruit loses his balance and falls back into the foxhole, cracks his skull on the concrete edge and gets a brain bleed and becomes brain damaged.
The CO, a BG issues an apology to the parents and public.
Well, I don't think that's right.
Ultimately yes, some of the responsibility must be assigned to the CO, and the CO learns from it - after he Fixes the problem. If he doesn't Fix the problem, then there is Another problem, and that's a whole different kettle of fish.
This is how a hierarchy works.
The CO doesn't apologize.
The sergeant does.
And at the back of his mind, he feels guilt, and fear of losing his rank and pay.
I don't want to see the CO apologize, and the sergeant not. I don't want to see the sergeant mitigate or vindicate himself. I don't need to see the sergeant punished.
But I would like to hear an apology.
Thanks to departmental stupidity I enrolled in a masters which was completely not what the department thought it would be. Thanks to monumental personal stupidity I decided to go-ahead with it. So here I am, on the brink of the great unknown, like a lamb to the... exam tomorrow.
So tired.
It's the eve of the elections.
Regardless of what happens, change looks... possible.
******
Imagine a training incident. A big one. Hypothetical.
A sergeant brutalizes a recruit - hmm where are you sgt Y*** from my NS days, with all your buttstrokes to the helmet during range, and all your vicious CCBs? -- and something bad happens, say the recruit loses his balance and falls back into the foxhole, cracks his skull on the concrete edge and gets a brain bleed and becomes brain damaged.
The CO, a BG issues an apology to the parents and public.
Well, I don't think that's right.
Ultimately yes, some of the responsibility must be assigned to the CO, and the CO learns from it - after he Fixes the problem. If he doesn't Fix the problem, then there is Another problem, and that's a whole different kettle of fish.
This is how a hierarchy works.
The CO doesn't apologize.
The sergeant does.
And at the back of his mind, he feels guilt, and fear of losing his rank and pay.
I don't want to see the CO apologize, and the sergeant not. I don't want to see the sergeant mitigate or vindicate himself. I don't need to see the sergeant punished.
But I would like to hear an apology.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
No money No Honey
The Election Department Replies On the Rejection of Tanjong Pagar Candidates - And Gives Clear Grounds. Please Circulate.
.by Karen Teoh on Monday, 02 May 2011 at 18:25.Edits made to painfully bloody obvious typos.
YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO REPOST THIS IS WHICHEVER FORUM OF YOUR CHOOSING.
Friends,
Please see the e-mail reply below from the elections department, the contents of which are self explanatory.
As a matter of further clarification, I personally called Mr Ng Teck Siong at 16:22 pm today and he picked up the phone.
I introduced myself as one of the assentors on nomination day and asked him about whether he had paid the elections deposit.
Mr Ng Teck Siong told me, with supreme conviction that “I don’t pay the election deposit because they never process the nomination form”, confirming the statements made by Mr Lee of the Elections Department.
Unfortunately, the explicit wording of the statute, as well as instructions to candidate issued by the elections department do not support his supreme conviction.
In fact, a contrary view is held as to the nomination process. The relevant sections and links to documents are here:
Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218) (“The PE Act”)
Deposits by candidates
28. —(1) A candidate, or some person on his behalf, shall deposit or cause to be deposited with the Returning Officer or with some person authorised by the Returning Officer in that behalf, between the date of the issue of the writ referred to in section 24 and 12 noon of the day of nomination, a sum equal to 8% of the total allowances payable to a Member of Parliament in the preceding calendar year, rounded to the nearest $500.
(1A) In default of the sum being so deposited under subsection (1), the candidate shall be deemed to have withdrawn his candidature under section 32
http://www.elections.gov.sg/pdf/PEC_handbook.pdf#zoom=100 at page 6, item 2.2
It appears that Mr Ng, in addition to being unable to fill in a form, is also incapable of reading clear instructions, much less following them.
While he should be given credit for his bravery in coming forward as a candidate, it appears to be the only positive quality we can credit him with.
In the foregoing circumstances, it would not be meaningful to bring a petition before the courts in this matter, any lateness or dispute of the meaning in s 29(2) would not materially affect the result of the election given the deemed withdrawal of the candidates under s 28(1A). This is because the relief prayer for is unlikely to be granted.
Be that as it may, I note that the Elections Department now say that 12 noon sharp is acceptable, whilst being careful to state that the candidates only attempted to submit the papers after 12.01 pm. In the next election, I look forward to seeing either explicit wording of the PE Act changed – or the practice or the clocks to be changed.
While I disagree with the Election Departments statement of facts about the candidates submitting the forms after 12.01 pm, having been a personal witness to the event some 2-3 meters away, I was not at the table itself. The best clarification would be to request that the Elections Department adduce all the evidence at hand. This course of action would be in the interests of public fairness and maintain public confidence in the integrity of our institutions, of which the Elections Department is a main pillar. I will be writing a last letter requesting the Returning Officers report, as well as the video evidence made available, as is likely, given that a precedent has been set by the matter of James Gomez nomination in 2006 where the Elections Department, of their own accord, produced the evidence.
I wish to thank you all for your time and interest in this matter and hope that we will continue to remain in contact.
Please circulate this message to all friends who may be interested in this matter, however as a matter of consideration, remove the e-mails of people who have previously been addressed by this e-mail.
I hope that this chain of correspondence, together with explanations, will lay to rest the unfounded allegations that have been circulating about the Elections Department during this general election.
I believe sincerely in the integrity of our civil service and hope that you will, after considering this matter in its’ entirety, share the same belief too.
In Friendship,
Karen Teoh
From: Seng Lup LEE (ELD)
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 3:52 PM
To: Karen Lau
Cc:
Subject: RE: Legal Issue Regarding Returning Officers Time for Closing of Nomination and Rejection of Opposition Candidates
Message Classification: Unclassified
Dear Karen,
I refer to your email of 27 April 2011, 7.43pm.
2 Section 29 of the Parliamentary Elections Act ("Act") requires candidates seeking nomination as a group in a Group Representation Constituency (“GRC”) to personally deliver to the Returning Officer in duplicate their nomination paper, political donation certificates of each of the candidates in the group and the GRC certificate on minority candidature between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive). They must be accompanied by the candidates’ proposer, seconder and at least 4 assentors (hereafter collectively referred to as “subscribers”). The Act also says that if not so delivered, the paper shall be rejected.
3 Section 28 of the Act further requires each candidate in the group to deposit $16,000 with the Returning Officer by 12 noon of Nomination Day. The law does not permit the candidates to stand for election in the GRC if they fail to make the election deposits by 12 noon.
4 Ample notice of how and when nomination papers and supporting documents have to be delivered and election deposits have to be made was given to aspiring candidates through various channels, such as the Elections Department website, the candidates handbook published by the Elections Department and the press release issued by the Elections Department on 25 April 2011.
5 On Nomination Day, the group of aspiring candidates seeking election in the Tanjong Pagar electoral division turned up at the Nomination Centre at Singapore Chinese Girls’ School. They made 2 attempts to deliver their nomination paper but both attempts were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
6 The first attempt was made about 2 minutes before 12 noon by only one of the aspiring candidates. The person delivered a nomination paper, unaccompanied by the other 4 aspiring candidates in his group and the group’s subscribers. The person also did not deliver the supporting documents required under the Act. As the other 4 aspiring candidates in the group and the subscribers were not present and the supporting documents were not presented when the nomination paper was delivered, the nomination paper was rejected. The Elections Department’s inquiries have also revealed that at the time of the first attempt, the 5 aspiring candidates had also not made their statutory declarations in the nomination paper as required by the Act.
7 At 12.00 noon, the Group Assistant Returning Officer announced that nominations were closed. If any set of nomination papers had been delivered at 12.00 noon sharp, it would have been accepted. However, the second attempt to deliver the nomination papers was made by the aspiring candidates slightly after 12.01 p.m. As the second attempt was made after the time permitted under the Act, the aspiring candidates’ nomination paper was rejected.
8 The Elections Department’s inquiries also revealed that the aspiring candidates in that group did not pay the election deposit of $16,000 per candidate as required under the Act.
Regards,
LEE SENG LUP
Head
Elections Department
Prime Minister’s Office
Visit our website at http://www.elections.gov.sg/
WARNING : This email may contain privileged and confidential information. If you receive this email by mistake, you should immediately notify the sender and delete the email. Unauthorised communication and disclosure of any information in the email is an offence under the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213).
From: Karen Lau [mailto:mrsdustinlau@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 27 April, 2011 7:43 PM
To: ELD Elections (ELD)
Cc: Seng Lup LEE (ELD); Raymond ONG (ELD); vervoon@pacific.net.sg; Dustin Lau; dinosaur@pacific.net.sg; yasser.mohamed@gmail.com; zakirh@sph.gov.sg; joshuachiang@yahoo.com; huey.ko@gmail.com; ong.liuching@gmail.com
Subject: Legal Issue Regarding Returning Officers Time for Closing of Nomination and Rejection of Opposition Candidates
Dear Sir,
My name is Karen Teoh (NRIC 791xxx4Z) and I was present at the nomination hall of Singapore Chinese Girls School (“SCGS”) today to be an assentor for the potential candidates contesting Tanjong Pagar GRC.
I refer to the phone calls between myself and your officials today, 27 January 2011.
In particular, I refer to the phonecalls between myself and your Ms Doris (assistant to Mr Lee, Head, Elections Department) at 5.19 PM and 5.32 pm, as well as to your Mr David Tay of the General Enquiries hotline at 5.45 pm and 18.02 pm.
At Mr Tay’s suggestion, I have written this e-mail to place on record our conversations to enable the Elections Department to look into my complaint more effectively.
I was informed by Mr Tay at 6.18 pm that Mr Raymond Lim, Assistant Head (Policy and Programmes), Elections Department considers the standard procedure of the Elections Department and Returning Officer in concluding that nominations close at 12 noon sharp as correct practice. As this is hearsay, I would seek your indulgence in setting out in your written reply to me that this is in fact the case, or if not, the standard procedure of the Elections Department and its returning officers.
However, I must respectfully disagree with the Election Departments position. An accepted cannon of interpretation is that the phrase “both dates inclusive” is taken to mean to the last moment possible moment of the inclusive date. The time period thus expires on the start of the next date. For example, the phrase “the offer is good from 1 January 2011 to 7 January 2007 (both dates inclusive)” means that the offer is valid until the last moment of 7 January 2007. The offer for both dates inclusive therefore only truly expires on the first moment of 8 January 2007, being midnight, 8 January or 12.00am. A similar reasoning would therefore follow interpretations of time, which are but a smaller subset of dates.
In this respect, I refer you to s 29(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218), which states:
“s29...(2) Every such nomination paper and certificate shall be delivered to the Returning Officer, in duplicate and in person, by the person seeking nomination accompanied by his proposer, seconder and at least 4 assentors, at the place of nomination between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive) on the day of nomination, and if not so delivered, shall be rejected.
[18/2005]
At the same time, I noted that the Returning Officer announced at 12:00 sharp on the clock at the Nomination Hall that the nominations were closed. Thereafter, the independent candidates rushed over to submit their papers. The clock had not yet chimed 12:01. Myself, together with the other assentors and seconders stood some distance, maybe 3 to 4 rows of chairs away.
An argument went on for some time about the closing of the period for the submission of nomination forms between the potential candidates from the opposition and the returning officers, whom were all highly commendable for remaining calm, civil and pleasant in the circumstances.
However, I believe that closing the nominations at 12:00 noon sharp by the returning officer is in error, as the phrase referring to “between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive)” is quite explicit to the contrary. I apologise that I have only written to you at this late hour as I did not have access to the specific wording of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218) until I returned home.
The legal and correct answer to when nomination closes turns on what time 12 noon is over, as the statute is explicit about “(both times inclusive)”. This is, in turn based on the smallest unit of measurement on the clock used. The clock used at the SCGS measures time only in units of minutes and not seconds and it would therefore be 12:01 PM that noon is officially over. If it was meant to be 12 noon sharp, then the statute should be explicit about it. However, the clear wording of the statute is to the contrary, being “between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive)”.
I understand that this has likely never been the case since very few independent candidates have been this tardy and disorganized and it is a novel nexus of facts and law that has yet to be considered in Singapore.
However, in the circumstances, given that several interpretations are possible and there accepted rules of interpretation do not favour the Elections department construction of the rule, the best party to answer would be the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Singapore. I respectfully and strongly urge the Elections Department to undertaken this course of action as no present or future allegations of bias online against the Elections Departments good standing would therefore be possible.
Justice must be seen to be done and I hope that the Elections Department will continue to serve all Singaporeans as faithfully and effectively as it has done in previous elections.
Yours in Friendship,
Karen Teoh
************
You'd think with so much riding on his shoulders, and so much goodwill and money poured into his cause the man would have wanted to treat this like... an election... and not a used-car purchase, and put his - oh wait, no - other people's damn money down.
Aside from that, looks like 35 seconds now 1:35min too late.
I think that's called red shift...
.by Karen Teoh on Monday, 02 May 2011 at 18:25.Edits made to painfully bloody obvious typos.
YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO REPOST THIS IS WHICHEVER FORUM OF YOUR CHOOSING.
Friends,
Please see the e-mail reply below from the elections department, the contents of which are self explanatory.
As a matter of further clarification, I personally called Mr Ng Teck Siong at 16:22 pm today and he picked up the phone.
I introduced myself as one of the assentors on nomination day and asked him about whether he had paid the elections deposit.
Mr Ng Teck Siong told me, with supreme conviction that “I don’t pay the election deposit because they never process the nomination form”, confirming the statements made by Mr Lee of the Elections Department.
Unfortunately, the explicit wording of the statute, as well as instructions to candidate issued by the elections department do not support his supreme conviction.
In fact, a contrary view is held as to the nomination process. The relevant sections and links to documents are here:
Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218) (“The PE Act”)
Deposits by candidates
28. —(1) A candidate, or some person on his behalf, shall deposit or cause to be deposited with the Returning Officer or with some person authorised by the Returning Officer in that behalf, between the date of the issue of the writ referred to in section 24 and 12 noon of the day of nomination, a sum equal to 8% of the total allowances payable to a Member of Parliament in the preceding calendar year, rounded to the nearest $500.
(1A) In default of the sum being so deposited under subsection (1), the candidate shall be deemed to have withdrawn his candidature under section 32
http://www.elections.gov.sg/pdf/PEC_handbook.pdf#zoom=100 at page 6, item 2.2
It appears that Mr Ng, in addition to being unable to fill in a form, is also incapable of reading clear instructions, much less following them.
While he should be given credit for his bravery in coming forward as a candidate, it appears to be the only positive quality we can credit him with.
In the foregoing circumstances, it would not be meaningful to bring a petition before the courts in this matter, any lateness or dispute of the meaning in s 29(2) would not materially affect the result of the election given the deemed withdrawal of the candidates under s 28(1A). This is because the relief prayer for is unlikely to be granted.
Be that as it may, I note that the Elections Department now say that 12 noon sharp is acceptable, whilst being careful to state that the candidates only attempted to submit the papers after 12.01 pm. In the next election, I look forward to seeing either explicit wording of the PE Act changed – or the practice or the clocks to be changed.
While I disagree with the Election Departments statement of facts about the candidates submitting the forms after 12.01 pm, having been a personal witness to the event some 2-3 meters away, I was not at the table itself. The best clarification would be to request that the Elections Department adduce all the evidence at hand. This course of action would be in the interests of public fairness and maintain public confidence in the integrity of our institutions, of which the Elections Department is a main pillar. I will be writing a last letter requesting the Returning Officers report, as well as the video evidence made available, as is likely, given that a precedent has been set by the matter of James Gomez nomination in 2006 where the Elections Department, of their own accord, produced the evidence.
I wish to thank you all for your time and interest in this matter and hope that we will continue to remain in contact.
Please circulate this message to all friends who may be interested in this matter, however as a matter of consideration, remove the e-mails of people who have previously been addressed by this e-mail.
I hope that this chain of correspondence, together with explanations, will lay to rest the unfounded allegations that have been circulating about the Elections Department during this general election.
I believe sincerely in the integrity of our civil service and hope that you will, after considering this matter in its’ entirety, share the same belief too.
In Friendship,
Karen Teoh
From: Seng Lup LEE (ELD)
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 3:52 PM
To: Karen Lau
Cc:
Subject: RE: Legal Issue Regarding Returning Officers Time for Closing of Nomination and Rejection of Opposition Candidates
Message Classification: Unclassified
Dear Karen,
I refer to your email of 27 April 2011, 7.43pm.
2 Section 29 of the Parliamentary Elections Act ("Act") requires candidates seeking nomination as a group in a Group Representation Constituency (“GRC”) to personally deliver to the Returning Officer in duplicate their nomination paper, political donation certificates of each of the candidates in the group and the GRC certificate on minority candidature between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive). They must be accompanied by the candidates’ proposer, seconder and at least 4 assentors (hereafter collectively referred to as “subscribers”). The Act also says that if not so delivered, the paper shall be rejected.
3 Section 28 of the Act further requires each candidate in the group to deposit $16,000 with the Returning Officer by 12 noon of Nomination Day. The law does not permit the candidates to stand for election in the GRC if they fail to make the election deposits by 12 noon.
4 Ample notice of how and when nomination papers and supporting documents have to be delivered and election deposits have to be made was given to aspiring candidates through various channels, such as the Elections Department website, the candidates handbook published by the Elections Department and the press release issued by the Elections Department on 25 April 2011.
5 On Nomination Day, the group of aspiring candidates seeking election in the Tanjong Pagar electoral division turned up at the Nomination Centre at Singapore Chinese Girls’ School. They made 2 attempts to deliver their nomination paper but both attempts were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
6 The first attempt was made about 2 minutes before 12 noon by only one of the aspiring candidates. The person delivered a nomination paper, unaccompanied by the other 4 aspiring candidates in his group and the group’s subscribers. The person also did not deliver the supporting documents required under the Act. As the other 4 aspiring candidates in the group and the subscribers were not present and the supporting documents were not presented when the nomination paper was delivered, the nomination paper was rejected. The Elections Department’s inquiries have also revealed that at the time of the first attempt, the 5 aspiring candidates had also not made their statutory declarations in the nomination paper as required by the Act.
7 At 12.00 noon, the Group Assistant Returning Officer announced that nominations were closed. If any set of nomination papers had been delivered at 12.00 noon sharp, it would have been accepted. However, the second attempt to deliver the nomination papers was made by the aspiring candidates slightly after 12.01 p.m. As the second attempt was made after the time permitted under the Act, the aspiring candidates’ nomination paper was rejected.
8 The Elections Department’s inquiries also revealed that the aspiring candidates in that group did not pay the election deposit of $16,000 per candidate as required under the Act.
Regards,
LEE SENG LUP
Head
Elections Department
Prime Minister’s Office
Visit our website at http://www.elections.gov.sg/
WARNING : This email may contain privileged and confidential information. If you receive this email by mistake, you should immediately notify the sender and delete the email. Unauthorised communication and disclosure of any information in the email is an offence under the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213).
From: Karen Lau [mailto:mrsdustinlau@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 27 April, 2011 7:43 PM
To: ELD Elections (ELD)
Cc: Seng Lup LEE (ELD); Raymond ONG (ELD); vervoon@pacific.net.sg; Dustin Lau; dinosaur@pacific.net.sg; yasser.mohamed@gmail.com; zakirh@sph.gov.sg; joshuachiang@yahoo.com; huey.ko@gmail.com; ong.liuching@gmail.com
Subject: Legal Issue Regarding Returning Officers Time for Closing of Nomination and Rejection of Opposition Candidates
Dear Sir,
My name is Karen Teoh (NRIC 791xxx4Z) and I was present at the nomination hall of Singapore Chinese Girls School (“SCGS”) today to be an assentor for the potential candidates contesting Tanjong Pagar GRC.
I refer to the phone calls between myself and your officials today, 27 January 2011.
In particular, I refer to the phonecalls between myself and your Ms Doris (assistant to Mr Lee, Head, Elections Department) at 5.19 PM and 5.32 pm, as well as to your Mr David Tay of the General Enquiries hotline at 5.45 pm and 18.02 pm.
At Mr Tay’s suggestion, I have written this e-mail to place on record our conversations to enable the Elections Department to look into my complaint more effectively.
I was informed by Mr Tay at 6.18 pm that Mr Raymond Lim, Assistant Head (Policy and Programmes), Elections Department considers the standard procedure of the Elections Department and Returning Officer in concluding that nominations close at 12 noon sharp as correct practice. As this is hearsay, I would seek your indulgence in setting out in your written reply to me that this is in fact the case, or if not, the standard procedure of the Elections Department and its returning officers.
However, I must respectfully disagree with the Election Departments position. An accepted cannon of interpretation is that the phrase “both dates inclusive” is taken to mean to the last moment possible moment of the inclusive date. The time period thus expires on the start of the next date. For example, the phrase “the offer is good from 1 January 2011 to 7 January 2007 (both dates inclusive)” means that the offer is valid until the last moment of 7 January 2007. The offer for both dates inclusive therefore only truly expires on the first moment of 8 January 2007, being midnight, 8 January or 12.00am. A similar reasoning would therefore follow interpretations of time, which are but a smaller subset of dates.
In this respect, I refer you to s 29(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218), which states:
“s29...(2) Every such nomination paper and certificate shall be delivered to the Returning Officer, in duplicate and in person, by the person seeking nomination accompanied by his proposer, seconder and at least 4 assentors, at the place of nomination between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive) on the day of nomination, and if not so delivered, shall be rejected.
[18/2005]
At the same time, I noted that the Returning Officer announced at 12:00 sharp on the clock at the Nomination Hall that the nominations were closed. Thereafter, the independent candidates rushed over to submit their papers. The clock had not yet chimed 12:01. Myself, together with the other assentors and seconders stood some distance, maybe 3 to 4 rows of chairs away.
An argument went on for some time about the closing of the period for the submission of nomination forms between the potential candidates from the opposition and the returning officers, whom were all highly commendable for remaining calm, civil and pleasant in the circumstances.
However, I believe that closing the nominations at 12:00 noon sharp by the returning officer is in error, as the phrase referring to “between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive)” is quite explicit to the contrary. I apologise that I have only written to you at this late hour as I did not have access to the specific wording of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218) until I returned home.
The legal and correct answer to when nomination closes turns on what time 12 noon is over, as the statute is explicit about “(both times inclusive)”. This is, in turn based on the smallest unit of measurement on the clock used. The clock used at the SCGS measures time only in units of minutes and not seconds and it would therefore be 12:01 PM that noon is officially over. If it was meant to be 12 noon sharp, then the statute should be explicit about it. However, the clear wording of the statute is to the contrary, being “between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive)”.
I understand that this has likely never been the case since very few independent candidates have been this tardy and disorganized and it is a novel nexus of facts and law that has yet to be considered in Singapore.
However, in the circumstances, given that several interpretations are possible and there accepted rules of interpretation do not favour the Elections department construction of the rule, the best party to answer would be the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Singapore. I respectfully and strongly urge the Elections Department to undertaken this course of action as no present or future allegations of bias online against the Elections Departments good standing would therefore be possible.
Justice must be seen to be done and I hope that the Elections Department will continue to serve all Singaporeans as faithfully and effectively as it has done in previous elections.
Yours in Friendship,
Karen Teoh
************
You'd think with so much riding on his shoulders, and so much goodwill and money poured into his cause the man would have wanted to treat this like... an election... and not a used-car purchase, and put his - oh wait, no - other people's damn money down.
Aside from that, looks like 35 seconds now 1:35min too late.
I think that's called red shift...
Monday, May 2, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Normalizing the curves
cut and pasted from TODAYonline. Translated into EasySpeak (tm)
5 questions with: Tin Pei Ling and Nicole Seah
The full Q&A with the rookie PAP and NSP candidates for Marine Parade GRC
by Sheralyn Tay and Tan Weizhen 05:35 AM May 01, 2011
What is the single biggest concern you have about Singapore?
Ms Tin Pei Ling: The single biggest concern I have for Singapore is the long term sustainability of the development of Singapore. I think there are a few dimensions to it. First and foremost while we don't want to just focus on the economy, I think it is very important because without the overall success of the economy, we won't have jobs for our people. Without jobs, without income, it is very hard for Singaporeans to lead a good quality of life or to even survive. If you ask me what is the biggest concern, it is the survival of Singapore; not just domestically, but regionally and internationally. It is about ensuring there are jobs and a future for Singaporeans - for us, our children and our children's children
Easyspeak
Biggest Concern: Next Time Money No Enough.
we need to focus on other things aside from money too.
like next time money no enough. jobs no enough - children no work, no money!
(dunno what happened to the other things.)
Ms Nicole Seah: I think the single biggest concern I have about Singapore, and this is the same concern that propelled me to join the Opposition, is the fact that we are growing so fast economically as a nation and in the process we are leaving many Singaporeans behind. I think that the aim of a government is to look out for the welfare of the people. I'm not advocating a welfare state where people become overly dependent but I think the current approach to taking care of the disenfranchised in society is minimalist, and I think that a lot more can be done to at least ensure that their basic needs are being met.
EasySpeak
Biggest concern: Welfare no enough - right now. Basic needs not met.
Want more welfare - but not too much that people become lazy bastards.
How fix? A lot more can be done... (not specified how.)
At what point would you draw the line between useful online criticism and ranting you would ignore?
Easyspeak : What is useful Internet criticism and what is not?
Ms Tin: For online discussions, if it is for personal stuff, then I think these can be put aside. What is more important is the discussion of issues. There is a lot of space and potential to do that online. Many of the younger generation spend a lot of time online, and this is an avenue whereby it would be useful to engage the younger ones. Because online is anytime, anywhere you have connection - 3G for example, you can do it anywhere. I think it is an important area that we should not neglect. At the same time what is on the ground is very important. Physically we are here, the problems municipally are here. We see for ourselves, we hear for ourselves, we talk to residents. I think that is very important, so I would not say online is the sole important avenue.
Easyspeak
Where draw line? If too personal, /ignore.
Useful criticism: not answered.
But internet is good place, is has many young people to talk to. and you can do it anywhere. and we are on the ground with the problems, we see, we hear, we talk. other places is good too.
Ms Seah: I am very mindful of all the comments I receive online. I know that a lot of them are quite positive, but at the same time I do pay very strong attention to the neutral or the negative comments because I feel they have identified my gaps and that is how I can improve. However I draw the line at personal attacks; I draw the line at comments that doubt my capability based on very personal things such as the way I talk, the way I dress, the way I look. These are things that I do not entertain as constructive feedback.
I would not respond to such comments at all. I haven't had the time to respond to all the comments but I do take note of the constructive feedback, and I do work it into the way I present myself. For example, there have been quite a few comments saying, 'all of you have correctly identified the problems facing Singapore today as a result of the policies, but what are the proposals to counter this?'. This is something I have been trying to formulate - we already have a manifesto in place but I need to share more of our manifesto at the rally so as to let people know what our solutions are, and that alternative parties do have viable solutions to be presented.
Easyspeak
Where draw line? If personal attacks that are irrelevant. /ignore
Useful criticism: Everything that not personal attack can be useful.
Want to say how fix problems (next time.)
Should the voting age be lowered?
Ms Tin: It is a matter of calibration. Where do you draw the line? For now it has always been set at 21. Perhaps we can commission a study and see at which point - from a human development point of view - is a person mature enough to decide for the long term. As long as you are clear about what you want in the future, that is the right age. Twenty-one is probably an arbitrary criteria, in my view. If you ask me whether it should go up or go down, I can't say for sure until there is a study done.
Easyspeak
Is should have younger voters : Is not sure.
How old : now is 21. must commission study and see when peoples become smart enough to think. only after study then decide.
Ms Seah: I think it's a pity that even at the university level there are many who are still quite politically apathetic, or at least that was the feeling I got from my time at NUS. I think in other developed democracies there are a lot of kids who take an interest in politics at a younger age. But I think the tide is changing, I think this elections there are younger Singaporeans who are not eligible to vote but they are already concerned about the issues at hand. They are taking the time to read up and find out more. That's a very encouraging sign.
I feel that in junior college and polytechnic level, the kind of learning they go through is based on a lot of questioning, a lot of reasoning, a lot of critical thinking. I think by then they should be able to develop their political views already. It would be a pity if at age 18 they are mature enough to think critically about other things but yet politics is still off limits to them. I do think that the voting age should be lowered to 18.
Easyspeak
Is should have younger voters : Yes.
How old : 18
Why : They already learned how to think smart.
What do you think constituents above the age of 50 are most worried about?
Ms Tin: There are two things. One is in terms of the infrastrucure. The elderly are physically older, so the way they move is slower and they need a lot of care and attention. We need to make sure that their access to amenties and facilties is easy. In Macpherson we have done a lot of upgrading in the past years, and we have almost completed all the barrier-free access across Macperhson to help our elderly move around, interact with people and better use the facilities and services. The other thing is to help them cope with the cost of living. Many are retired or retiring. Especially those who are retired, they have no source of income. A lot of them come from lower income families so they are also struggling to make ends meet. So financially, it can be a challenge. I think these are the two areas of concern. It is not just in Macpherson, but nationally as well.
Easyspeak
what oldies worried about? 1) Cannot walk, cannot get around. 2) high cost of living
how fix: 1) make easier to get around. 2) it can be a challenge across whole country... (=not addressed)
Ms Seah: After doing our rounds the feedback we have gotten is that old people are very worried about falling ill. I think they are starting to recognise that healthcare costs are getting more and more exorbitant in Singapore. As a result they are very afraid to fall sick and be a burden to their families. On top of that the rising cost of living is another issue. This eats into their daily expenses for their very staple necessities, like the food they need to eat at the hawker centres, things like that. So I think that they do feel the pinch that has arisen from the recent inflation and tax increases.
Easyspeak
What oldies worried about : Falling sick. Rising costs of healthcare, burden on family. High cost of living.
How fix: (not addressed)
(To Ms Tin) What do you appreciate most about the Opposition today?
Ms Tin: I think they are definitely more more courageous today. I can see that out of the 87 seats, 82 are contested. I think that is a good sign. Having a contest is something we should encourage. At the end of the day it is a contest of ideas. We should definitely give the option to Singaporeans. It is also in a way a report card of the party as well, to see if we have done well in the past years. I think it is something that is valuable and important
Easyspeak
Why I like opposition : they are braver now. They give report card.
(To Ms Seah) What do you appreciate the most about the PAP today?
Ms Seah: I think one thing we cannot deny - they have developed Singapore from a small fishing village to a robust economy. And I think they have done a good job putting Singapore on the world map, so events such as F1 have drummed up a fair bit of interest overseas. I do feel the spillover effect as a result of this, where you have tourists coming in, making use of the amenities. I do still feel that more can be done for the local merchants during this time, as there are some people who still complain traffic to their shops remains slow during this period and it affects their business. So I think more measures can be put in place. But overall, events like F1 have done well to raise the visibility of Singapore as a country.
Easyspeak
Why I like PAP : They is doing good till now.
F1 is very important.
(The interviews were conducted separately and face to face.)
5 questions with: Tin Pei Ling and Nicole Seah
The full Q&A with the rookie PAP and NSP candidates for Marine Parade GRC
by Sheralyn Tay and Tan Weizhen 05:35 AM May 01, 2011
What is the single biggest concern you have about Singapore?
Ms Tin Pei Ling: The single biggest concern I have for Singapore is the long term sustainability of the development of Singapore. I think there are a few dimensions to it. First and foremost while we don't want to just focus on the economy, I think it is very important because without the overall success of the economy, we won't have jobs for our people. Without jobs, without income, it is very hard for Singaporeans to lead a good quality of life or to even survive. If you ask me what is the biggest concern, it is the survival of Singapore; not just domestically, but regionally and internationally. It is about ensuring there are jobs and a future for Singaporeans - for us, our children and our children's children
Easyspeak
Biggest Concern: Next Time Money No Enough.
we need to focus on other things aside from money too.
like next time money no enough. jobs no enough - children no work, no money!
(dunno what happened to the other things.)
Ms Nicole Seah: I think the single biggest concern I have about Singapore, and this is the same concern that propelled me to join the Opposition, is the fact that we are growing so fast economically as a nation and in the process we are leaving many Singaporeans behind. I think that the aim of a government is to look out for the welfare of the people. I'm not advocating a welfare state where people become overly dependent but I think the current approach to taking care of the disenfranchised in society is minimalist, and I think that a lot more can be done to at least ensure that their basic needs are being met.
EasySpeak
Biggest concern: Welfare no enough - right now. Basic needs not met.
Want more welfare - but not too much that people become lazy bastards.
How fix? A lot more can be done... (not specified how.)
At what point would you draw the line between useful online criticism and ranting you would ignore?
Easyspeak : What is useful Internet criticism and what is not?
Ms Tin: For online discussions, if it is for personal stuff, then I think these can be put aside. What is more important is the discussion of issues. There is a lot of space and potential to do that online. Many of the younger generation spend a lot of time online, and this is an avenue whereby it would be useful to engage the younger ones. Because online is anytime, anywhere you have connection - 3G for example, you can do it anywhere. I think it is an important area that we should not neglect. At the same time what is on the ground is very important. Physically we are here, the problems municipally are here. We see for ourselves, we hear for ourselves, we talk to residents. I think that is very important, so I would not say online is the sole important avenue.
Easyspeak
Where draw line? If too personal, /ignore.
Useful criticism: not answered.
But internet is good place, is has many young people to talk to. and you can do it anywhere. and we are on the ground with the problems, we see, we hear, we talk. other places is good too.
Ms Seah: I am very mindful of all the comments I receive online. I know that a lot of them are quite positive, but at the same time I do pay very strong attention to the neutral or the negative comments because I feel they have identified my gaps and that is how I can improve. However I draw the line at personal attacks; I draw the line at comments that doubt my capability based on very personal things such as the way I talk, the way I dress, the way I look. These are things that I do not entertain as constructive feedback.
I would not respond to such comments at all. I haven't had the time to respond to all the comments but I do take note of the constructive feedback, and I do work it into the way I present myself. For example, there have been quite a few comments saying, 'all of you have correctly identified the problems facing Singapore today as a result of the policies, but what are the proposals to counter this?'. This is something I have been trying to formulate - we already have a manifesto in place but I need to share more of our manifesto at the rally so as to let people know what our solutions are, and that alternative parties do have viable solutions to be presented.
Easyspeak
Where draw line? If personal attacks that are irrelevant. /ignore
Useful criticism: Everything that not personal attack can be useful.
Want to say how fix problems (next time.)
Should the voting age be lowered?
Ms Tin: It is a matter of calibration. Where do you draw the line? For now it has always been set at 21. Perhaps we can commission a study and see at which point - from a human development point of view - is a person mature enough to decide for the long term. As long as you are clear about what you want in the future, that is the right age. Twenty-one is probably an arbitrary criteria, in my view. If you ask me whether it should go up or go down, I can't say for sure until there is a study done.
Easyspeak
Is should have younger voters : Is not sure.
How old : now is 21. must commission study and see when peoples become smart enough to think. only after study then decide.
Ms Seah: I think it's a pity that even at the university level there are many who are still quite politically apathetic, or at least that was the feeling I got from my time at NUS. I think in other developed democracies there are a lot of kids who take an interest in politics at a younger age. But I think the tide is changing, I think this elections there are younger Singaporeans who are not eligible to vote but they are already concerned about the issues at hand. They are taking the time to read up and find out more. That's a very encouraging sign.
I feel that in junior college and polytechnic level, the kind of learning they go through is based on a lot of questioning, a lot of reasoning, a lot of critical thinking. I think by then they should be able to develop their political views already. It would be a pity if at age 18 they are mature enough to think critically about other things but yet politics is still off limits to them. I do think that the voting age should be lowered to 18.
Easyspeak
Is should have younger voters : Yes.
How old : 18
Why : They already learned how to think smart.
What do you think constituents above the age of 50 are most worried about?
Ms Tin: There are two things. One is in terms of the infrastrucure. The elderly are physically older, so the way they move is slower and they need a lot of care and attention. We need to make sure that their access to amenties and facilties is easy. In Macpherson we have done a lot of upgrading in the past years, and we have almost completed all the barrier-free access across Macperhson to help our elderly move around, interact with people and better use the facilities and services. The other thing is to help them cope with the cost of living. Many are retired or retiring. Especially those who are retired, they have no source of income. A lot of them come from lower income families so they are also struggling to make ends meet. So financially, it can be a challenge. I think these are the two areas of concern. It is not just in Macpherson, but nationally as well.
Easyspeak
what oldies worried about? 1) Cannot walk, cannot get around. 2) high cost of living
how fix: 1) make easier to get around. 2) it can be a challenge across whole country... (=not addressed)
Ms Seah: After doing our rounds the feedback we have gotten is that old people are very worried about falling ill. I think they are starting to recognise that healthcare costs are getting more and more exorbitant in Singapore. As a result they are very afraid to fall sick and be a burden to their families. On top of that the rising cost of living is another issue. This eats into their daily expenses for their very staple necessities, like the food they need to eat at the hawker centres, things like that. So I think that they do feel the pinch that has arisen from the recent inflation and tax increases.
Easyspeak
What oldies worried about : Falling sick. Rising costs of healthcare, burden on family. High cost of living.
How fix: (not addressed)
(To Ms Tin) What do you appreciate most about the Opposition today?
Ms Tin: I think they are definitely more more courageous today. I can see that out of the 87 seats, 82 are contested. I think that is a good sign. Having a contest is something we should encourage. At the end of the day it is a contest of ideas. We should definitely give the option to Singaporeans. It is also in a way a report card of the party as well, to see if we have done well in the past years. I think it is something that is valuable and important
Easyspeak
Why I like opposition : they are braver now. They give report card.
(To Ms Seah) What do you appreciate the most about the PAP today?
Ms Seah: I think one thing we cannot deny - they have developed Singapore from a small fishing village to a robust economy. And I think they have done a good job putting Singapore on the world map, so events such as F1 have drummed up a fair bit of interest overseas. I do feel the spillover effect as a result of this, where you have tourists coming in, making use of the amenities. I do still feel that more can be done for the local merchants during this time, as there are some people who still complain traffic to their shops remains slow during this period and it affects their business. So I think more measures can be put in place. But overall, events like F1 have done well to raise the visibility of Singapore as a country.
Easyspeak
Why I like PAP : They is doing good till now.
F1 is very important.
(The interviews were conducted separately and face to face.)
Short cuts
A long time ago...
thirty uniformed men stood stock still in rank and file.
a senior warrant officer paced before them, glaring at them one by one.
"Gentleman, welcum to **** camp. I, am your RSM. They call me The Tiger. Tiger T**."
(very slight sniggers)
"Most important here, is don't make me angry. Duuuuuun make the Tiger Bark at you!"
(choked back laughter)
he stops pacing.
"What? Why you laugh??"
"still laugh! You young people... the more I talking, the worse I get!"
(hysterical laughter)
thirty uniformed men stood stock still in rank and file.
a senior warrant officer paced before them, glaring at them one by one.
"Gentleman, welcum to **** camp. I, am your RSM. They call me The Tiger. Tiger T**."
(very slight sniggers)
"Most important here, is don't make me angry. Duuuuuun make the Tiger Bark at you!"
(choked back laughter)
he stops pacing.
"What? Why you laugh??"
"still laugh! You young people... the more I talking, the worse I get!"
(hysterical laughter)
Change
Everyone's saying it. Change, you can feel it. Change is around the corner.
You know what my greatest problem is with this elections?
We have gone from being politically apathetic to politically angry.
We - read the youth, the sub thirty-fives, and the not-so-youths, the greater than thirty fives.
We the people, one people, one nation...
We haven't gone from politically apathetic to politically aware; we've gone from politically apathetic to politically stupid.
I'm as much a fan of the underdog as everyone else; I have the same grouses as everyone else.
But I want to listen, and hear the words. I don't want to hear what I want to hear - I want to understand what the speakers are saying.
Loud, amazonian words that echo with resounding conviction sound very nice. They look nice too, like a scene from Braveheart. But if all that comes out is "we need an opposition, we need checks and balances so the government cannot run rampant over us" - Over, and over. and over again.
Well, that's not helping is it? Re-stating the perceived problem over and over again doesn't make you a leader in my eyes. It makes you repetitive. It makes your fiery words nothing more than propaganda, of a different form.
The office analogy.
I can see that the photocopier is on the fritz, and the coffee machine is bust.
If I keep saying it loudly enough, does that mean I get to be manager?
If I accuse the manager of slacking off enough, does that mean I can do his job?
Obviously not.
If I want CHANGE, I have to:
a) call a repairman in, get everything fixed up and pay for it out of my pocket - basically do his job, myself, because I am interested in the job getting done and fixing the problem. I can do his job, but I really just want the job done.
or
b) speak to HIS boss, tell him how he is slacking off, and propose a solution: I can call this repairman, this is the number, I've gotten quotes, this is the cheapest, I want reimbursement..... - basically offer to do his job so that someone will see I am better than he is, and give me his job. I can do his job, and I want his job.
If all I do is make the whole office aware of a problem that they're already aware of, does that make me managerial material?
Hopes are running high as the herds work themselves up, listening to inspirational drivel.
I'm feeling a little disappointed.
You know what my greatest problem is with this elections?
We have gone from being politically apathetic to politically angry.
We - read the youth, the sub thirty-fives, and the not-so-youths, the greater than thirty fives.
We the people, one people, one nation...
We haven't gone from politically apathetic to politically aware; we've gone from politically apathetic to politically stupid.
I'm as much a fan of the underdog as everyone else; I have the same grouses as everyone else.
But I want to listen, and hear the words. I don't want to hear what I want to hear - I want to understand what the speakers are saying.
Loud, amazonian words that echo with resounding conviction sound very nice. They look nice too, like a scene from Braveheart. But if all that comes out is "we need an opposition, we need checks and balances so the government cannot run rampant over us" - Over, and over. and over again.
Well, that's not helping is it? Re-stating the perceived problem over and over again doesn't make you a leader in my eyes. It makes you repetitive. It makes your fiery words nothing more than propaganda, of a different form.
The office analogy.
I can see that the photocopier is on the fritz, and the coffee machine is bust.
If I keep saying it loudly enough, does that mean I get to be manager?
If I accuse the manager of slacking off enough, does that mean I can do his job?
Obviously not.
If I want CHANGE, I have to:
a) call a repairman in, get everything fixed up and pay for it out of my pocket - basically do his job, myself, because I am interested in the job getting done and fixing the problem. I can do his job, but I really just want the job done.
or
b) speak to HIS boss, tell him how he is slacking off, and propose a solution: I can call this repairman, this is the number, I've gotten quotes, this is the cheapest, I want reimbursement..... - basically offer to do his job so that someone will see I am better than he is, and give me his job. I can do his job, and I want his job.
If all I do is make the whole office aware of a problem that they're already aware of, does that make me managerial material?
Hopes are running high as the herds work themselves up, listening to inspirational drivel.
I'm feeling a little disappointed.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Ground
Maybe they're just a vocal minority, a rare few who take arms and go online, and even go live.
Or maybe not.
Questions:
Are those voices of support? Perhaps rallying calls to others to listen?
And then... is that a silence of disinterest?
Hmm.
******
Personally, I have reservations about this one. Is the force strong in her? Really and truly?
Or is she just more self-aware and people-savvy than her MIW counterpart?
Listen to the words.
They're the words guaranteed to strike a chord in you.
They're the words to make you angry.
*****
"It's about You."
Yes. This is what Gen-Y wants to hear.
*****
I hear the words, and I hear nice thoughts. Idealistic thoughts. The big question for the opposition is - have you got what it takes? Really? Each and every one of you? To form a government, and run a country, the way you want to? Have you done all your homework? Have you done your contingency planning, your plan Bs if A doesn't work? Are you more proactive than reactive?
Are you different?
(Or are you just... angry?)
Winning the elections is only the first step...
Or maybe not.
Questions:
Are those voices of support? Perhaps rallying calls to others to listen?
And then... is that a silence of disinterest?
Hmm.
******
Personally, I have reservations about this one. Is the force strong in her? Really and truly?
Or is she just more self-aware and people-savvy than her MIW counterpart?
Listen to the words.
They're the words guaranteed to strike a chord in you.
They're the words to make you angry.
*****
"It's about You."
Yes. This is what Gen-Y wants to hear.
*****
I hear the words, and I hear nice thoughts. Idealistic thoughts. The big question for the opposition is - have you got what it takes? Really? Each and every one of you? To form a government, and run a country, the way you want to? Have you done all your homework? Have you done your contingency planning, your plan Bs if A doesn't work? Are you more proactive than reactive?
Are you different?
(Or are you just... angry?)
Winning the elections is only the first step...
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tin Pei Ling is Not Young.
There's a lot to think about this elections. A lot that can be written, and too much that should not be said.
Other people are writing and saying these things. These are the Youth, the much hyped members of Generation Y who feel that they can write and speak with impunity; who were not born in the turbulent times of yesteryear, who do not remember because they were not there. I worry for them. I think that we may not quite have come as far as we think, and that their time is not... quite upon us yet.
Singapore is not quite ready for a myopic Me generation, that can think only of itself, and that equates running something as large and complex a country to the simple needs of the individuals.
I would have been distressed in my youth to think that an older self would have changed so very much that I would advocate moderation. I was young and hotheaded then, and I bore the men in white no love. I am older now; I bear them as little love as before, but some of the time I see sense behind the things they do and say, where before I could not. And some of the time they compromise themselves for a few Hard Truths, that cannot be told. Yet some of the shenanigans this elections... some of the antics have been hard to swallow. I can't write about those. Old habits die hard, and even if the culture of fear exists only between my ears, it's still there.
I can touch on some simple things though.
Tin Pei Ling is not young.
She is old enough to be a mother of two, even three. To be responsible for the well being of other lives, to have to think for them, and their futures. 27 is not old in this ridiculous country - it's nearly past prime, time for the shelf...
Nicole Seah is young.
Barely old enough to be a mother of a newborn babe. Fresh out of university. Someone not expected to have an ounce of responsibility about her, who could easy get away with going clubbing and being a good time party girl - someone not old enough to need to settle down and be responsible.
I watched the videos, same as everyone else.
I saw two very, very different individuals. One looked like a person who knew what it was to be responsible, who was self-aware, who could empathize with a target audience. Who had grasped the socio-political issues that were relevant to her and her "clients".
The other looked like someone trying to say all the right things - like someone who wanted to be the other.
Perhaps it's all window dressing. Perhaps it's all substance over form. Perhaps the proof of the pudding is in the eating as the men in white are so wont to say.Or perhaps not.
One thing is for sure - it's really, really not about how old they are.
It's about how mature they are - how old they are in their heads - how they see themselves in their heads - how responsible they want or do not want to be - why they are choosing the paths they are: their motives.
It's about who they were even before signing up for the cause - not about on the job learning or having the potential to become someone else.
Let's be very frank. Tin Pei Ling is not young. Nicole Seah is young.
One seems to be immature, and the other looks mature.
Tin Pei Ling is not that pretty. Neither is Nicole Seah, for that matter. I have friends and acquaintences far more blessed in the looks departments.
We're looking at them through very jaundiced eyes, comparing one to the other. We're not being objective.
Objectively speaking, BOTH these girls are not ready - both of them will have to learn on the job. Both of them have not learned the experiences born of hard-truths and mistakes that come only with age.
Both of them would lose nothing by waiting a little while longer to assume the mantle of tribal elder. Because that's really all an MP is, in this country.
Now is not the time to be raising fledgelings into government, when government looks so shaky and uncertain. Now is the time for leaders, for people who know how to fill in the cracks and shore up the faults - before the system breaks under its own weight.
******
The men in white need to know this: a state-created champion of Youth (and "new media" expert!) just will not work.
Generation Y is young.
Generation Y is immature and filled with teenage angst.
Generation Y is selfish and impetuous.
Generation Y does want not to hear sob stories about fathers, heart attacks and coffee shops - Generation Y does not want to hear that I am a common man/woman from the street and so I can be your leader. Generation Y doesn't give a flying f*** about Your Suffering or your Commonality.
Generation Y wants instant gratification - Generation Y wants musicians born and note made through sweat and hard work. Discovered overnight through insta-celebrity reality TV.
Generation Y wants their leaders to be strong - not to cry in public. To say that they have no regrets to date that will cripple them.
Generation Y wants their leaders to EITHER be common men but not wear it on their shoulder and trumpet it to the world - YET STILL be "uncommonly talented" enough to do things that they themselves cannot -- OR ESLSE be the uncommon man, born with a silver spoon in the ass - but with an unspoken humility that has the same effect - not trumpeting it to the world - with that same undefinable talent that transforms them into more than the layman can be.
Generation Y wants their leaders to look alive, sparkle, and shine. To be witty on their feet, to be unique, to have a fresh perspective - or at least a strongly personal perspective on things.
And most of all Generation Y wants their champion to emerge though popular vote - not be named by a "benevolant" father figure.
*****
Desmond Lee is too old to be a champion - he is Generation X.
But I applaud him for remaining the Gentleman that I vaguely remember him being, back in school.
It was good of him to help his opponents pass the line.
We need more people like him - in both camps. We need less of the ugliness, less talk about incorrectly documented employment statuses, or quibbling matters of mere seconds. We need more good conduct, and fair competition this elections.
We need leaders, not children.
Other people are writing and saying these things. These are the Youth, the much hyped members of Generation Y who feel that they can write and speak with impunity; who were not born in the turbulent times of yesteryear, who do not remember because they were not there. I worry for them. I think that we may not quite have come as far as we think, and that their time is not... quite upon us yet.
Singapore is not quite ready for a myopic Me generation, that can think only of itself, and that equates running something as large and complex a country to the simple needs of the individuals.
I would have been distressed in my youth to think that an older self would have changed so very much that I would advocate moderation. I was young and hotheaded then, and I bore the men in white no love. I am older now; I bear them as little love as before, but some of the time I see sense behind the things they do and say, where before I could not. And some of the time they compromise themselves for a few Hard Truths, that cannot be told. Yet some of the shenanigans this elections... some of the antics have been hard to swallow. I can't write about those. Old habits die hard, and even if the culture of fear exists only between my ears, it's still there.
I can touch on some simple things though.
Tin Pei Ling is not young.
She is old enough to be a mother of two, even three. To be responsible for the well being of other lives, to have to think for them, and their futures. 27 is not old in this ridiculous country - it's nearly past prime, time for the shelf...
Nicole Seah is young.
Barely old enough to be a mother of a newborn babe. Fresh out of university. Someone not expected to have an ounce of responsibility about her, who could easy get away with going clubbing and being a good time party girl - someone not old enough to need to settle down and be responsible.
I watched the videos, same as everyone else.
I saw two very, very different individuals. One looked like a person who knew what it was to be responsible, who was self-aware, who could empathize with a target audience. Who had grasped the socio-political issues that were relevant to her and her "clients".
The other looked like someone trying to say all the right things - like someone who wanted to be the other.
Perhaps it's all window dressing. Perhaps it's all substance over form. Perhaps the proof of the pudding is in the eating as the men in white are so wont to say.Or perhaps not.
One thing is for sure - it's really, really not about how old they are.
It's about how mature they are - how old they are in their heads - how they see themselves in their heads - how responsible they want or do not want to be - why they are choosing the paths they are: their motives.
It's about who they were even before signing up for the cause - not about on the job learning or having the potential to become someone else.
Let's be very frank. Tin Pei Ling is not young. Nicole Seah is young.
One seems to be immature, and the other looks mature.
Tin Pei Ling is not that pretty. Neither is Nicole Seah, for that matter. I have friends and acquaintences far more blessed in the looks departments.
We're looking at them through very jaundiced eyes, comparing one to the other. We're not being objective.
Objectively speaking, BOTH these girls are not ready - both of them will have to learn on the job. Both of them have not learned the experiences born of hard-truths and mistakes that come only with age.
Both of them would lose nothing by waiting a little while longer to assume the mantle of tribal elder. Because that's really all an MP is, in this country.
Now is not the time to be raising fledgelings into government, when government looks so shaky and uncertain. Now is the time for leaders, for people who know how to fill in the cracks and shore up the faults - before the system breaks under its own weight.
******
The men in white need to know this: a state-created champion of Youth (and "new media" expert!) just will not work.
Generation Y is young.
Generation Y is immature and filled with teenage angst.
Generation Y is selfish and impetuous.
Generation Y does want not to hear sob stories about fathers, heart attacks and coffee shops - Generation Y does not want to hear that I am a common man/woman from the street and so I can be your leader. Generation Y doesn't give a flying f*** about Your Suffering or your Commonality.
Generation Y wants instant gratification - Generation Y wants musicians born and note made through sweat and hard work. Discovered overnight through insta-celebrity reality TV.
Generation Y wants their leaders to be strong - not to cry in public. To say that they have no regrets to date that will cripple them.
Generation Y wants their leaders to EITHER be common men but not wear it on their shoulder and trumpet it to the world - YET STILL be "uncommonly talented" enough to do things that they themselves cannot -- OR ESLSE be the uncommon man, born with a silver spoon in the ass - but with an unspoken humility that has the same effect - not trumpeting it to the world - with that same undefinable talent that transforms them into more than the layman can be.
Generation Y wants their leaders to look alive, sparkle, and shine. To be witty on their feet, to be unique, to have a fresh perspective - or at least a strongly personal perspective on things.
And most of all Generation Y wants their champion to emerge though popular vote - not be named by a "benevolant" father figure.
*****
Desmond Lee is too old to be a champion - he is Generation X.
But I applaud him for remaining the Gentleman that I vaguely remember him being, back in school.
It was good of him to help his opponents pass the line.
We need more people like him - in both camps. We need less of the ugliness, less talk about incorrectly documented employment statuses, or quibbling matters of mere seconds. We need more good conduct, and fair competition this elections.
We need leaders, not children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)