why is it that the opposition parties keep complaining that things are difficult for them? the most heard complaint is dat the grcs are too big. and wp proposed that grc to be scrapped. and sda says it should be smaller, like 3-man grc.

the issue whether grc is effective or not is debatable. but i think the opposition should face the simple fact. that things will always be difficult for them. that to win votes is not that simple. that the world is unfair.

to get into the parliament is difficult. but it's a greater challenge to run singapore as an mp. cos the world is unfair to singapore and that's a fact. we are a "little red dot", with nothing but human resources. and to remain a red dot on the map, or be a bright red dot, is a daunting task. a task more daunting than fighting a 6- or 5-man grc.

think the opposition should grow up, and face these 'obstacles'. when faced with stiff competition from neighbours with cheaper labour costs and more resources, does the incumbent complain and request that labour costs increase? or does the incumbent go around saying that the northern govt is corrupt and is covering up for the crime rates?

like wat mm lee said, we deserve a first world govt. winning a grc is nothing compared to governing a country. if the opposition cannot even find 6 good men to fill up forms properly, how can we trust them to run our lives??

pls let me live a good life for the next five years.

btw mika brought up a good point. the opposition seems to have missed out some big issues, like the IR issue.
-----------------------------------------------------
btw i'm getting to vote! pap vs sda.

find out more about the elections. someone apparently did a comprehensive summary of the elections and had placed an entry in wikipedia. here's the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15th_Singapore_general_election

chee soon juan (chee) has made the headlines and is going to face lawsuits once again. those who dunno his infamous history can visit wikipedia's entry. there's also a documentary film on him, by an obvious sympathiser. there's also his blog maintained by a uncleyap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chee_Soon_Juan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Democratic_Party

again, i emphasize that i'm not an sdp sympathiser. this guy has his own ideals, which may be good for singapore. but i disagree with his methods, and esp with his slandering of the govt. honestly speaking, i doubt any bankrupt do such a comprehensive investigation to make such audacious accusations of the govt. he could only base his comments from heresay and gossip.

that asides, after reading abit on sdp, i realise that sdp has no concrete plans for singapore. watever proposals made were done for the sake of opposing. it seems that little thoughts have been given.

anyway, was disappointed at the way sdp has 'used' the NKF scandal as a strategy. coming up with audacious accusations will not win them any points with a rational and pragmatic voting population. in fact, sdp's actions have undermined the true lessons to be learnt from the scandal.
the need for checks, that absolute power corrupts, etc etc.

elections is on 6 may!!

but i dun think i'll get to vote either. i'm living in hougang but my area is under punggol-pasir ris grc. so teo chee hean is at the helms, so dun think anyone wanna challenge him.

oh read about the small section in straits times about political blogging. yeah. so it's legal as long as one dun have any stand. yes. i've no political affliation and no stand. so guess it's legal.

i was surfing the other day and found e the websites to the opposition parties over here. so i'll post the links here.

like i've said, i dun support anyone. but i hope pple will make a more informed choice. i personally haven't surf all e sites...

http://www.wp.org.sg/
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/
http://www.spp.org.sg/
http://www.nsp.sg/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Singapore

students are so spoilt nowadays!! today there were some secondary school students visiting my ship. think it was part of their ne program or something like that. their behaviour was so appalling. no big no small la. talking when i was briefing about the ship la. but the most disgusting thing was that: when the girls were walking down the stairs, the guys tried to 'peep' (in inverted commas, cos they were obviously trying to look) from below. the worst thing of all: their form teacher was with them all the while and he was like so used to it.

sigh... wat is happening to our education system?

yes. i'm in nus once again. bought mika dinner and just visited my fren in nuh.

wanted to blog about mm's dialogue with the journalists (who supposedly represent the young singapore - who could explain clearly what pple like me think). but then i read today's youthink that blogging about politics is banned. (ok i know this was mentioned in the dialogue. but it didnt create the link.)****

but i kinda agree on mm's view on politics. politics is not about voting, it's about the management on daily life. politicians in some sense help us manage our lives in areas that we are unable to control. it's not about communism or facism, democracy or dictatorship, liberal or conservative. these are just ideologies, or theories. it's true that ideologies and theories form the fundamentals. but it's theory together with experience that form wisdom and knowledge that results in good governance.

why am i saying this? i feel that our opposition is weak, because besides talking, they do not give the impression that they can deliver. so they lack resources. so they were never given a chance. but how true is it? perhaps i do not see the obstacles they face. but i feel that there are many ways they can improve their image.

Take for example the issue on the casino. i heard of social workers, religious figures speaking out against the idea. there've been an online petition too. but from the opposition, besides mr steve chia, mr chiam and mr low voicing their concerns in the parliament, i've (i may be misinformed) known none of the opposition's actions. could they not do some survey or study with the professionals inside their party?

there's the thing about management of daily activities by mm lee. i feel, if the opposition composes of figures who are prominent in their careers, i may consider changing my votes. (of cos, whether prominent figures will stand out for election is another issue.) i would expect a leader whom i vote for to be exemplary in his realm of work. i mean, isnt this logical? if a guy can manages his day-to-day living well, then i would suppose he can manage issues affecting my life well. conversely, if someone messes up his own life, how u expect me to trust that he wont screw up mine?

hmmm. as usual, i sound q confused and this whole blog looks totally incohesive. so to whoever that thinks that this blog may be detrimental to the unity of society, i'm willing to remove this gibberish. pls do not bring me to court because of this unconvincing and incoherent piece of writing.

***i think this ban perpetuates the sense of political apathy amongst young singaporeans.

now in nus, accompanying mika (and ck) to study for the exams. dun believe that i got so much patience. haha. oh well, managed to do some reading about deterrence.

anyway, mervyn did a health survey of me. basically, he got this gadget that sends electric pulses to the left palm. then based on the level of pain one feels, he'll diagnose the problems. something like acupuncture, and prob have to do with one's nervous sys.

basically, the following was concluded:

i have a bad liver, am showing syptoms of joint problems/arthritis. supposedly caused by stress and too much red meat and beer in my diet.

q frankly, i think i'm stressed. i seem to be thinking of a lot of things at one time. whether i'll get bwc in time. about deterrence. about the core value workplan. about the officers' dinner. and even how to enjoy myself. haha. maybe i'm too ambitious lah, trying to do so many things at one time. but so far, all this stress nv seems to surface. besides the occasional mood swings, i've managed to get my rest and i dun seem to be falling ill. hmmm. but mervyn managed to detect it somehow.

but i dun think stress results from doing too many things. but rather WANTING to do many things, but NOT getting started to do any. mr ikeda once said in some publication, that to relieve stress, is to face your challenges and start working against them. i think it's v true. stress usually results from piling up of leftover work. one usually feel stress when one realises that one has not finished his job. while conversely, one feels relief when one completes his task.

how ironic for me to say this. i'm typing a blog when i've uncompleted tasks. my big boss (coscom commander) asked me how to measure deterrence last month and i've yet to revert to him. (up till now, i dunno if it was a joke. cos he asked the qn when he found out i'm a maths major.) anyway, think i'm making some headway, and i hope to give him some answer soon.

ok lah. end here liao. by the way, mervyn asked me to cut down red meat intake and beer intake. eat more fish and drink more milk. (he say anlene is good. yucks.) well, all except beer part should be executable lah. i dun drink much beer too ma. hmmm.

was reading this book entitled "Deterrence, A Conceptual Analysis" by Patrick Morgan.

there was this section, he described the following scenario. Two states A and B, where A is a relatively strong military power, while B is a weaker but belligerent one. A wants to preserve peace and deter B from attacking A and A's ally C. So, A builds up a huge army (or beefs up his already stronger military) which threatens B of 'unacceptable costs' should B attack A or C. this is the basic idea of deterrence, B will not attack anyone cos of the huge unacceptable costs of retaliation from A.


However, while B does not attack A or C, B necessarily feels threatened by A's military might. whether or not, A has the intent of attacking B. (in theory, A will only use its military only if B becomes belligerent... but...) So, logically, B tries to build up B's army and etc.


Now, we look from A's perspective. B is building up his army. the question is: is my military (A's) still strong enough to inflict 'unacceptable costs' to B, if B's army become stronger? doubt arises and cost/benefit analysis becomes clouded. the next instinct is: should i(A) attack B and stop this buildup before B gets too strong? clearly, a preemptive attack will minimise costs since this prevents B from attacking A or C. therefore, A attacks B.

i brought up this analysis cos i felt it kinda explained (not to imply that i feel it's right/ethical) why U** attacked I***. i also brought this up cos this analysis was done in 1977. q long time ago, before the gulf war broke out. and it's quite cool that someone so long ago can foresee the problems of deterrence or the problem of military preponderance (ie excessive military might) of one country. dunno if the policy makers of U** actually read the book (i presume they did), but they certainly 'fulfilled the prophesy'.

Now, i beginning to see e wisdom of prof alatas. he's some m'sia uni lecturer who gave a lecture on peace n cruelty last month. when i first heard his lecture, i was q disappointed at his 'naiveness'. one instance was when apple (my gf's sis' bf) asked prof alatas, "wat will u do if u r a leader of a country? and ur neighbour is building an army and has the intent of attacking you?" his answer was a shocker, "i will not build up an army too. i will seek to reason with the neighbour. building up an army will be pointless..." well, till now, i still feel suspect about his views. partly cos i'm in the navy, and partly i thought of aggressors like hitler. but now, i begin to see the wisdom in him saying "... will be pointless".

People always ask me about wat i do in the navy. Not to imply that i have many things to do, but i simply do not know how to start describing. To say that i'm defending the seas of Singapore is too vague. Probably only over a few entries will i be able to describe appropriately.


Well, presently, i have no 'real appointment' in the navy. as new officers, either freshly commissioned from midshipman (our term for officer cadet) school or returning from uni studies, we are collectively called Officers Under Training. OUTs. As the name applies, we are under training. However, we are no longer training in a school, but working onboard ships to apply and practise knowledge learnt from school, and pick up other soft skills. Note that the school does not refer to uni edu, but midshipman training. This is quite common amongst the professional careers. Doctors have housemanship. Architects do. Even your lecturers at uni undergo a phase as "post-doc"s before they are officially accepted to the uni (ie obtain tenureship).


yeah. this is the period where we learn from officers who are doing the real stuff, and understudy them with the hope of taking over their responsibilities in the future. for us, this period is around one year, and not many of my peers like this phase. One senior officer likened this phase to an apprentice learning from the master carpenter. However, I prefer to liken it to the ancient times where the disciple learns from the kungfu master. yes, as in the martial art flicks, we have the disciples doing the meanial work and running errands and be totally subservient to the master.


well, we do not do much menial work now, but in the past, the OUTs certainly do. i've heard senior officers telling us that they had to wash bilges (you can imagine them to be drains of a ship). but menial work has manifested into administrative stuff like checking email, filing documents, doing duties, organising events, etc etc. so, u can see why most of us dislike being OUTs. esp the newly commissioned officers, the 2LTs. a lot of them feel v disillusioned. (another reason is probably cos they see their army counterparts commanding respect as PCs, while they have to be humble to other officers and the senior specialists).


however, now that i'm going through the OUT phase for a second time after my studies (i was an OUT before i left for studies 4 years ago), i feel that i'm able to accept my status, and in fact find satisfaction in wat i do. it's only right that OUTs help out the appointment holders (the other officers) with the menial work, as this is the one way we can return for the knowledge they impart. this is in sync with the 'mentor-disciple' relationship described in nichiren buddhism. while the mentor imparts knowledge to the disciple, the disciple reciprocates by protecting his master. (for those who grow up with the old kungfu movies. when the master is being attacked or challenged, it is the disciple who comes forward first to accept the challenge.)


sadly, this concept has been gradually eroded. This is esp so in the education sector. the mentors/teachers are constantly under scrutiny to give their best in teaching the students. moreover, teachers may get under fire in circumstances. students no longer accord their teachers the due respect, and let alone defend their teachers in times of difficulty. when their teachers are being 'bad mouthed', the students would probably join in the 'bad mouthing'. this is more so as an OUT. i've seen some junior OUTs 'bad mouthing' their immediate superiors and at times report the 'wrong doings' of their immediate superiors to higher authorities. Of course, such acts aggravate the relationships between them, and the OUTs learn v little.


On the other hand, i've seen great examples of good 'mentor-disciple' relations. paul and kc (the senior OUTs onboard my ship, they've left for course since feb) are certainly such examples. they've been v conscientious in their work and has contributed much to the administrative work of the ship before me. paul for example ran the core-value program on behalf of my CO (Commanding Officer = boss of ship). they performed all the admin tasks that were thrown to them dutifully and without grudge. their commitment to the ship was rewarded when CO gave them plagues before they left the ship for course. (i seldom heard of OUTs getting plagues from COs). but the impt thing is that their positive attitude facilitated the transfer of knowledge from 'mentor to disciple', and earned them much respect from fellow OUTs of other ships.


Hmmm. i started out from talking about my work as an OUT and digressed to mentor-disciple. think i need to improve my blogging/essay writing skills.