Pursuing Happiness

Singaporeans.

We're so sad, we need people to tell us how happy we are. Or are not.

And then we refused to believe them. 

So here's the latest:

UN survey names S’pore the happiest country in the region

UN survey names S’pore the happiest country in the region

MARCH 16, 2016

SINGAPORE — Singaporeans may be fond of complaining about their lot in life, but that does not appear to have stopped the city-state from being ranked the happiest country in the Asia-Pacific by a new survey produced for the United Nations.

The survey, which polled about 3,000 people in each country and asked them to evaluate their life in 11 categories on a scale from 0 to 10, also ranked Singapore as the 22nd happiest country in the world. Singapore moved two notches up from the previous list.

Overall, Singapore scored 6.739 in the “happy index” of the World Happiness Report 2016, which was published by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network for the United Nations.

Making sense of information and "facts" in the Internet Age

We live in the age of information.

We live in the age of the Internet. With Twitter. And Blogs. And Websites.

We live in the age of Information overload. For every position on the Internet, I am sure you can find a not-necessarily-equal, but definitely opposite position.

If you try to present facts on the internet, you can be sure that someone can present links to websites and facts to counter your facts.

You can be sure that if you have a quote from an expert, there will be another expert who will say the exact (or nearly the exact) opposite. And someone will quote him or her to you.

In this age of Information Overload, how do you decide what facts to accept (or believe) and which "facts" are bunk?

Exploiting David Ong

First of all, I do not usually post on a current event so soon after it breaks. So this is a rarity, and in case you have a suspicion, yes, this blog piece is all about exploiting the currency of PAP's David Ong resignation as an MP for Bt Batok SMC. So if you are reading this and was drawn here because you Googled "David Ong", thank you for visiting this blog. Exploiting his name has worked.

The reason I do not usually post on breaking stories is that the facts are still coming out, and really, all people have are speculation. Which does not mean that people keep from speculation and restrain themselves. The lack of information just gives them more scope, more freedom for speculation.

And we could all do with a little more freedom.

Why not Proportional Representation?

In a recent discussion on Singapore's political system, some opposition parties suggested scrapping the GRC (and presumably, first-past-the-post) voting to have Proportional Representation System (PRS).

There is a series of videos on political systems - how to choose a government - on YouTube, by CGP Grey.

First, you should watch the video on The Problems with First Past the Post voting.

This is a 6 1/2 minute video covering the problems with one person one vote, and first-past-the-post rules.

The initial scenario with 7 candidates is similar to the SG 2011 Presidential Election, with the winning candidate, getting less than 50% of the votes.

At 1:40, the video covers why eventually, all such First-past-the-post system will end up with a two party system (like in the US), and (by implication) why most voters don't bother to vote  by then (in the US, voter turn out for the Presidential Elections is about 50% or less in some years).

CPF Rant

A ranting comment on the CPF minimum sum, and a ranting rebuttal. From Facebook comment.

I should mention that there are some salty language, but it is in Hokkien (I believe) and most young people probably don't know Hokkien. Those that do know Hokkien, and salty Hokkien at that, they don't need my protection.

Sam Lee wrote: "U all keep your Fxxking mouth shut !!! Answer my question if u can . Dont talk cock & simg song . In 1970' s when i start working , they said i can withdraw CPF at 55 . When i reached 55 , & i cant withdraw CPF , why ? If they want to change CPF rules , should effect from that date , not when they promlsed us , in 1970's . So who is telling the truth !!!"

What makes good politics?

"Good Politics" is an oxymoron.

But first let's hear what WP's Low Thia Khiang proposes as "good politics" (From ST 28 Jan 2016, "WP chief Low Thia Khiang: Good politics not just good policy and lack of gridlock"):

One, politics should be "all-inclusive", so that national interest can be agreed upon by consensus instead of being "monopolised by the ruling party".
"The Government should recognise that there are many ongoing and independent national conversations and should allow for differences in opinions to flourish without marking these conversations as disloyal and divisive," he said.
Two, those with "narrow political interests" should be encouraged to engage in dialogue and such discussions should be seen as "an educational process for Singaporeans to learn and to discern what is politics for the collective good of the nation and society".
Three, Singaporeans must be trusted to be "independent, rational and wise social actors" who can build up institutions not affiliated with the Government.
For instance, universities here were "tightly controlled for fear of their political influence", but have achieved "world-class status" after their autonomy was protected.
Academics can criticise the Government and have even joined alternative political parties but "our political system has not been destabilised as a result".
Finally, politics cannot be defined just by good policies and the absence of gridlock.
"Excessive fears of political gridlock" will lead Singapore to depend on just one political party, "waiting for it to rot to the point of no return before any alternative party can be formed to take its place".

NCMP and the Opposition

PM Lee has proposed several changes to the Singapore Constitution in line with the call from the Presidential address to Parliament.

One of the proposal was to give Non-Constituency MPs (NCMP) full voting rights on all parliamentary matters. And to increase the number of NCMP to a maximum of 12 (less the number of elected opposition MPs).

In April 2011, I had said that NCMP should be given full voting rights on all parliamentary matters. At that time the number of NCMPs was (and still is) limited to 9. The new amendments to the constitution would raise that to 12.

Back then, the WP attacked the NCMP for not having the full rights of an MP.