I want to play, i don't want to study!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
argh....

This NYP sex scandal thing has been going around a few days. Initially, i thought there were too many people talking about it and i kind of pity the girl, hence i din plan on talking about it here. But i just read about her telling the papers that she didn't think she did anything wrong. And i decided to pen my two cents worth here, before i start my trust paper, to get my brain juice flowing.

Well, like i told my uncle, there is nothing morally or legally wrong with taking nude, sex videos for own viewing. Both consenting adults (or rather, capable of consenting in the eyes of law) involved, for watever reason they took it is besides the point.
Nothing wrong definitely, but down right stupid.
1) "It is nothing wrong because everyone is doing it"
Like what my uncle used to tell me when i was younger "Everyone goes and jump down, you jump down also?" This episode is very telling of the sense of right and wrong that teenages (or even youth, the guy is 21) have. If everyone does it, then it must be right. Or rather, if i do it, i shouldn't be deemed as doing a wrong thing.
Whatever happened to principles? To moral values? The line isn't drawn by each individual, but by others.

2) If you want to video ur bed scenes, keep it properly, securely.(if you don't intend to be a porn star)
I'm sure the january Straits Times made it pretty clear how many mobile fones Singapore lose in a year. I believe 22 phones are lost a day. (but to be frank, i don't think cheerleaders read the papers very much..hahah, tt's just me talking.) K, i don't think teenagers nowadays read the papers very much. Hence, if you wish to take something so private, and keep it so, you should have uploaded to a laptop and save it in a CD or even DVD. How much memory can a hp have, seriously? Unless as my uncle suggest, u wanna watch it everywhere u go or show it to your friends?
Paul made a very valid point that no one expects to lose their fones, which i entirely agree.
But everyone knows there is a possibility of losing fones.(when it is getting smaller and smaller everyday) You don't have to expect to lose a fone to secure such information, if that information is so private and important to you
Even if you don't expect to lose ur fone, you risk having friends picking up ur fone to play with. I say this with the assumption that that person in question has not showed her friends the video (which of cos, we are assuming it is for private entertainment).

3) Her fone was stolen, the videos uploaded on the internet.
Logically speaking, if you can 'forget' about having a sex video on ur fone, then probably your friends have all watched it. So, words probably have gotten out that you have such a video. Hence, someone intended to steal it in order to humiliate you publicly (perhaps internationally)
So if we trace this back, are we back to the stupid argument? or something more? On the evening news, it was reported that many JC students have taken nude pictures of themselves and their partners in order to show their friends. It was considered 'hip' and 'cool' and of cos, everyone was doing it (which in teenish, means 'right') In this sense, i'm not too sure if it was merely stupid, or simply vain and wanting to be 'trendy'. It can even be peer pressure. to quote a friend of mine, some of this videos 'it is obvious that these girls are performing for the camera'. All these seem to point to the direction of 'showing off' rather than private consumption.

There is nothing wrong with being stupid. It is lawful to be stupid. In fact, people like to know you're stupid. You don't go to jail, you just go on the headlines.

With all due respect,
Wenrong

hahaaahah!!!
It must be a good day today!!!!
Barca won the first leg in Champions League first knock out round agains the Blue 2-1, at Chelsea's 'potato field'!!!!
Although there was one own goal each from the two teams, Eto'o gave the visitors the edge 10 mins before the game was over...
hahahahha
THE BEST PART:
Chelsea's Del Horno was sent off after tackling the unstoppable Messi. Soccernet termed it as a 'mistimed tackle' which did not justify a red card. But the Argentinian 'rolled in the mud and the Barca players reacted as if he has been murdered'.
I would have stand up for any other team if they were penalised for such play acting, but i have to say this:
CHELSEA DESERVES IT!!!! muahahahhahhaha
To think that mourinho had the cheek to warn his players of Barcelona's players' acting skills. His own Robben is an Oscar winner himself.

And let's not even get to the state of the field. mourinho actually said that pretty people may not be intelligent, ugly might not mean stupid to explain the state of his field!! Friend, ugliness don't affect the intelligence, but i'm pretty sure a bare field will affect the play on the field. What kind of lousy comparison is this?

WooHoo!! and the underdog, Arsenal won Real Madrid 1-0 as visitor!!!! Nothing against Real but with so many super stars but you cant stop Thiery Henry and a team of young players... Shows that money cannot buy everything in the world!!! YEahhhhh
Way to go!

Muahahahah this is a good day to start my trust assignment. :p
Btw, even thou Liverpool lost 1-0 to Benfica in the first leg, i'm sure we'll get it back!!!!

wooHoo!!! Start of my term break!!!! Guess what? I have two assignments due by the end of this one week break... from two 8 credits module. I'd rather not have the break...

argh.
I'm still stuck with my consti law assignment.. i have no idea what to write. But i'll try. Sigh. I think i feel defeated right from the time i read the question, totally no confidence in tackling this. I guess this is the effect of getting too many Cs - in the end you start to question your abilities from the beginning. Puiz.

No life.
My friends have been trying to ask me out a few times... I have no choice but to turn them down. Tuitions, assignments, tutorial, never ending. So many things that you stop doing them, stop wanting to finish them and just watch TV...

Gotta write my resume soon, i don't want to end up like last year, missing the deadline and then do nothing constructive for the rest of my holidays (as much as i want to do that)

I'm just so lazy that sometimes i am amazed at my own laziness. Not hardworking and meticulous enough. i wonder what kind of job can i do nex time... Clean toilet mayb.. dunnid to be too meticulous for that.

Argh... I need to change!!!!!!!!!
HOW?

"I know I have not won against them since coming here and I am being told we haven't beaten them in the FA Cup for 85 years. That has surprised me but it is time to change all those statistics," Rafael said.

HAhahah ERROR.. Paiseh...
I have much to learn and remember :p

Chee On Judicial Independence- another bankruptcy of opposition in Singapore

I've read it but as usual, failed to impress me. Anyhow, people should read it to judge for themselves.
A piece of article, if charged with so much emotions, is difficult to have any academic value. Many examples, many quotes but somehow, it failed to point how what kind of role does judiciary play as part of the three arms of government. Secondly, the piece fail to take into consideration the good of our judicial system, which will definitely be brought up if PAP were to reply to this article(IF).
The worst argument is by bringing up quotes from organisations in other countries. We dont really give two hoots about what other liberal democratics say about our system, don't he understand that by now?
What does the law say? What does the Constitution say? What does the normal practice say? What is wrong with having no lawyer to represent you? I believe if he lists these out instead, he would have gotten more empathy from Singaporeans instead of quoting the ang mohs.

Well, by publishing this, as someone has said, he must have thought that once he is bankrupt, they no longer can punish him for what he says. That's probably why he cc this to MM Lee. What is his point? Is he telling others how bias the judiciary is? Is he complaining?

I cant help but draw an analogy to a situation of a rebellious child, who'd do anything just to upset his parents.
By losing the suit, he has lost all credibility EVEN if it did not cost him his eligibility to stand for elections. Now with this letter, he seems to be 'getting back' at MM Lee and SM Goh, like a child shouting "Na Na Nee Poo Poo!!! IS this all you can do?" He is saying that, "now that i'm a bankrupt, i can write about anything and you can't get to me anymore!" It is true to the extend of physical possessions. But his own letter has also taken away any respect anyone can possibly have towards him (if any) as an opposition fighting for political democracy in Singapore for so long. His fight has slowly deteriorated to a personal grudge against the incumbent party, losing his objectivity and his focus on democracy for Singaporeans.
Which brings me to ask whether is he really working towards political democracy or demolishing it? Such act only further impresses upon us, the electorate, on how immature and incredible the opposition is, collectively.
Is he really pushing for democracy or pushing it futher from us?
If oppositions wanna survive in Singapore, better pay Chee and ask him to get out of politics, before all of us lose faith in opposition.

Anyway, enough about politics. I've been meaning to talk about my personal sensitive issue, about being a supporter of Liverpool FC. Because one of my friend actually accused me of being a Liverpool supporter because of Paul. Here i'd like to clarify.
No doubt i started watching liverpool matches because of Paul, but back then, i watched as a very neutral and objective onlooker. I slowly picked up names of players.
I was exceptionally sad when Liverpool lost to Bolton 2-0, that was when i realised i could be a fan. They're fighting spirit was impressive, nice passes. It was most disappointing because the two goals conceded were rather accidental.
Even before that, i felt that Rafael was a really different manager whom seldom diss other teams (thus far, i've only seen one such report of him being sacarstic). His faith in his players is really strong, especially when Crouch wasn't scoring at first. He is really humble, hardworking and caring manager, unlike other big headed ones from other clubs.
The more reports i read about liverpool and their fans, the more i like the club. How the fans loved Rafael even before he showed any results, cheering for him when they spotted him in the bar. How the team work so hard despite their losing streak.

I was pissed to be called a proxy supporter. Because it doesn't speak very much of me. Paul did taught me what i got to know about liverpool. But trust me, if they were anything like the blue team, i wouldn't waste my time watching their game. To me, to be called a proxy supporter for liverpool is an insult. Not only does it suggest i don't have a mind of my own, i cannot judge for myself, it actually shows how little people think of me. It also speaks of being a soccer fan is a man's right, a woman can only be a proxy fan.
I understands how my friend felt. A lady, who cant pronounce liverpool's manager's name properly, cant be a serious fan. A lady, who doesn't wake up at 4am in the morning to watch Liverpool vs Charlton, cant be a serious fan. A lady, who dint give two hoots about soccer a few months ago, cannot be a serious fan overnight. She is just a proxy fan, claiming to be a know-it-all after watching 2 months of soccer, defending weakly this team she hardly knows from two other Man-u fans. What does she know about soccer compared to us who have watched and played soccer all our lives?
Just for information, I am a fan but not a lunatic. I have lesson 10 am in the morning, having to wake up at 630am, i don't think i should be watching a match at 4am. Just because i'm rational doesn't make me any less supportive. I did check the scores first thing i turned on my computer in the morning.

I'm not trying to prove anything and if ever my friend sees this, i just want to say that i did not confront you there and then is because i know i wont be able to out talk you. But the point is not out-talking each other. It is to realise and accept that soccer talk is not just the men's right. Perhaps not a full fletch soccer fan because i don't watch every match, but i do try to read up on what i like.

Cheers!

WR

I've got so many things to talk about, wonder if i have the time, or the patience to write about all of them: My latest public law reading: Independence of Judiciary in Singapore; The Danish Cartoon outrage; and on a more personal level, the attack on the reason why i support liverpool. All very sensitive issues, on many different levels, national, inter-national, and personal. But don't expect too much from this post, because i'm in a rush for time (Going back to my very exciting, illuminating, yet depressing public law readings). :p

Independence of Judiciary in Singapore
Many who have attempted to smear the independence of judiciary have been taken to court for contempt and i have full awareness that by writing about this, i am threading on thin ice. Hence, i shall write my disclaimer once again, and change the style of writing today, which i doubt will be of much help.
---------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Even after all my public readings, i am a supporter of a competent government, which we obviously have today. Being an advocate for my political awareness does not make me anti-PAP. Readers will draw their own conclusions from what i'm about to write, and i will do my utmost to include the citations, just in case i am sue for making these things up.
---------------------------------------------------
Judiciary is the third arm of the government, separated from the executive and legislative, in order to provide adequate check and balances within the government. To uphold the Rule of Law - a law that ought to be regular and upholds equality (diceyian concept).
In Singapore, the judiciary has two responsibilities: 1)A review of unconstitutionality of laws / acts of executives and 2) A guardian of fundamental rights of individuals, Part IV of the Constitution . These two duties necessarily mean that judiciary is a check on the executive, limiting their 'untrammelled power'. With such a great and difficult duty to discharge, especially since it is against the executive, one would expect the appointment of judges to steer away from the influence of the Executive. However, the fact of the matter is that:
Art 95(1)of the constitution- the CJ, the Judges of Appeal and Judges of the High Court shall be appointed by the President if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister.
This same article is applicable to the appointment of High Court judge, Court of Appeal Judge and Judicial commissioner.
The PM shall consult CJ, other than for the appointment of CJ under clause 1.
No doubt, the presence of the Elected President and CJ can outweigh the inclusion of the head of the Executive. However, "these other participants in the appointment process have a potentially small part in the final say as to who should be appointed to the Judiciary." (Michael Hor, "The Independence of the Criminal Justice System in SIngapore", SJLS [2002] 497-513)

Appointment aside, Tenure of the judges will guarantee them their job even if they rule against the incumbent government. Art 98 provides for the Tenure of office of Judges of Supreme Court (higher court)
(1)- Judges of SC shall hold office until he attains the age of 65
judges past the age of 65 'tend to be hired as contract judges for a certain number of years' (Thio Li-Ann, "Lex Rex or Rex Lex", (Pacific Basin Law Journal)20, 2002, Pg 21) These contracts are not extended automatically. According to Francis Seow, "the contracts are renewable at the will of the Prime Minister, is not conducive to judicial independence" ("The Singapore Puzzle, at 116). (I cannot find the profile, age of the high court judges of today, due to my incompetence. All i could find is list of pictures and names of these judges.)
Hence, There is no conclusive evidence that the high court today is filled with contracted judges passed their retirement age, which can influence their decisions on government related cases.
But it is undeniable that such a practice raises suspicion where the succession rate of administrative actions against the government is low, thou not unknown of (Re Fong Tin Choo, [1992] 1 SLR 120). Even though Such low rates, on itself is, again, not conclusive that judiciary independence is lacking. It does not necessarily draw the link, because it may be because there is high prosecutorial efficiency, in bringing only the guilty to the court (Michael Hor). Thus the judges, who are impartial have little choice but to convict, or to rule in the government's favour.

To judge on these different factors independently of the others, it seems that we have a very good system of independent judiciary to protect the individuals, and safeguard the democratic system. However, it is noteworthy that conclusion should not be drawn studying on the factors alone. All of them constitute a bigger picture. Appointment largely influenced by the head of executive; provisions of tenure allows discretion of the executive. There is an inevitable pattern. The judiciary system in Singapore thread in the grey area of neither wholly independent nor dependent. On the face value, there are beautiful safeguards to prevent too much interference by the executive. But during enforcement, what is actually happening when these provisions are executed?
One e.g. to illustrate this:
The president, CJ will balance the weightage of PM's say in the appointment of Supreme Court judges on the face value of the provisions.
Elected Presidency Institution is itself a young institution, yet to developed into a strong veto power it supposedly should possess.
CJ, is appointed by the President, but again, with the advice of the PM.

All these evidence seems to be reinforcing a point, that there is executive influence in every turn of the checks, meant to be exercised on the Executive.

I am not advocating to abolish all these provisions, i.e. that judges retire at the age of 65 regardless of whether there is any competent successor. As a Singaporean, i do not wish to have chaos. Neither do i want to see an over powering judiciary which checks on every trivial matter involving the Executive. That is an extreme I don't wish to see either.
All will be fine with the present system, as long as we are able to trust and have competent people in the executive. But just as PAP said that multi-racial peace in Singapore cannot be ensured in the future, we cannot be sure that the incumbent party will always have and be filled with honourable men.

The post is meant to be as neutral i can ever be on politics. But like what Prof Thio mentioned in class "how can one talks about politics without being political?"

Sorry, think i spent too much time on this that my other two posts will be postponed to some other time...

Cheers!

Doubt i'll be able to watch the match tml morning, i have lesson at 10am.. don't think my tutor will appreciate a student nodding off in his class, after going late for lesson last week... Oh well, Good luck livepool! :D

Just had a taste of how is it like to have two tuition assignments back to back. I think i'm starting to learn how to treasure my time a lil more (not considering my time spent on this blog). I rested and finished most of my tutorial, although i only jotted down the main ideas.. I hope i can keep up and maybe do better.. Right now my mind can only think of the new episode of Desperate Housewives that i've d/l. FOCUS girl!!!

I saw the picture of YJ jogathorn of myself. I really look fat like anything. I think i look fatter than what i used to be. Sigh. that's actually qt devastating. Guess that explains the crunches and sit-ups i was doing before the new post page loaded up. Anyhow, i will try my best to become what i used to me. Sigh...

Feel like sleeping already. Doesn't feel like a mid-week.. think too little work. Probably because i'm trying to block out the thought of the various assignments that are due really soon. Head in the sand... "they're not there. they're not there. they're not there..."
Argh

Hardwork is just not for me man.

Regards,
WR

Sigh, nothing much to post. Din read papers today because i kept thinking my lesson is at 10, so i had to leave home by 830. Which was the time that i woke up... And the clever me took a cab to sch!!! and found out at the entrance of law fac that my lesson is at 12, that leaves me with 2 and a half hours to eat breakfast...

Sitting in Biz Canteen is not very inspiring so i don't think i'll have much to say on my blog.
Was reading Shaun's blog and he's on sexual freedom again, or tt's how i understand it. LOL Some student wrote in to Forum yesterday or a day ago saying the organisation that gave them the 'sex talk' was discouraging the use of condoms because it was not effective in preventing STD or diseases transmitted by sexual intercourse. Reason being, the virus is much smaller than the pore on the condom.
So this parent wrote in today, saying he is relief that there are organisation highlighting the limitations of condoms, that as a parent, he would like his kids to be protected from the scheming manufacturers who care about nothing but profits...

I don't feel very strongly about this issue, so my post will probably wont be a very intellectual piece.

Well, for a start, i don't think that we can reverse the workings of westernisation in the country. The younger generation has access to diverse and volumous infomation in their daily lives, through the internet, tv, papers, magz, etc. Many articles, advertisements, tv programmes uses the topic of sex to sell, or to increase viewership. However, before we start pointing finger at the mass media, ans one simple question, is this young generation a bunch which cannot think for themselves?
If your answer is no, these people can think for themselves, then you should leave it up to them to make the decision. To the parents whose children are of legal age, your children have the right to choose and all you can do as a parent, is to help them make INFORMED decision. Like telling them the possible consequences of certain things that they do, but you cannot MAKE that decision for them. Most definitely, telling them that condom doesn't work against STD seems to be contrary to what i see on posters in hospitals. What am i to believe? Hospital posters or a religion related organisation?

And for those parents whose kids are still young, it is your job to inculcate in them the importance of the decisions they make in life, sex education even though you're afraid of opening the door. The more you try to shun from it, the more mysterious the topic will seem to them and the more they'll try to find out. Parents can't seem to understand that very much.

Of cos, i don't advocate free and easy sexual relationship, where a person can have as many sexual partners as they wish. I believe that it is sometime intimate which cannot be done with any person of the opposite sex that one see. I believe that as long as my children understand this point and know how to protect themselves, my job is done.

Perhaps i'm not qualified to say this, because i've yet to have my own children. But anyway, i always believe that
it matters not what is taught, what matters is that which is learnt.

Yawnz.. another hour to go...
sigh

Regards,
WR

"I'm in a hurry and I must go to the hospital to see how Robben is, he could be in hospital for a week," commented Benitez.

The man is angry and sacarstic. And i'm totally behind him!!! I guess this is the first time he lose it after a match. and for good reason.
Way to go!

Well, i don't know but i think there should be defence of Provocation on the field and it'll fit this case perfectly.

Supposed to be eating my lunch right now, but i had to check out liverpool website after the 2-0 defeat to Chealsea this morning...
I have to say i'm pretty disappointed with the scores, since liverpool dominated the match. It was most frustrating when all you lack is the person who find the net. The first goal that was conceded was completely unnecessary. Only Reina and another two defenders were left in front of the goalpost while everyone else rush towards the ball. It was a very serious mistake in my very amatuer view. Like Rio in the match against Man U, William Gallas was lucky to be at the right place at the right time, which btw, added to my frustration.
The second goal, scored by Crespo, was clearly an offside to me but liverpool's official website said "Crespo beat the offside trap"... Arhhhhhhhhhhh
Thou Reina was disappointing this morning, he din deserve the red card. But he should have gotten a grip of himself instead of 'touching Robben' (quote Benitez) Liverpool is appealing against the decision, otherwise, Liverpool will be playing without Reina for the next few matches against Charlton, Wigan and Arsenal. Bearing in mind that Charlton had force a draw on Chealsea (thou i din catch the match). Personally, i can't stand Robben and cannot appreciate how Chealsea players conducted themselves this morning. I know many pple hate the Team but i din know they can have such effect on first time viewers of their game. Their play was not just rough and lack of style, i have a sneaky suspicion they deliberately left the pitch bare. Because obviously, they would have been used to playing on such substandard pitch. It will only be to the visitors disadvantage, much disadvantage. I'm sure the tycoon who can pay players 100 over millions PER WEEK can afford to do up the pitch of his team's homeground. People dont pay 45 pounds per tkt to such dilapitated stadium!!!!

As all of you can see, i'm pretty worked up by the stupid blue team. Please do not mention their name in front of me, because i don't know what i'll do. I don't know who in the right mind will support such a team. Oh, i forgot, those people who don't watch the matches?

Regards,
WR

Wasn't able to open my blog just now, for a moment i tot my blog got closed down because of the previous post i did on politics. Well, i'm sure the government is more generous than that, i mean what can i do with a small blog space on the vast internet?
Just yesterday, Someone told me that once the elections is declared, we cant write posts that support any political party. He added that not even putting down a particular party, because that means you are supporting another one. I din think that is true logically and mathematically. However, to be on the safe side, i don't think i'll write anything about politics when that time comes.
Well, this week's seminar is on elected presidency. And i remember last week, when the debate between WP and PAP was going on, one of the manifestos publish was to take away the EP scheme. Then, i was wondering if there was anything wrong with having an Elected President.
Our constitution was amended in 1991 to have an Elected president instead of one that was selected. The main reason why he needs to be elected was because of the added responsibility of safe guarding the Nation's reserves. The EP was to be one of the two keys to the national reserves, 150billion when LKY raised the suggestion of this scheme. Main rationale was to safeguard the money from potential contenders who promise the electorate the sky and spend millions from past reserves to realise that promise. Of cos, the junzis from PAP would not and did not have to make such promises to win the seats in Parliament. It was a 'just in case of freak elections' kind of scheme, i would say, and the following amendments to the scheme will tell.
(Keep in mind, the president's job is to guard against drawing of past reserves.)

1) In 2004, Art 22B was amended to:
a)A transfer by a relevant statutory board of its reserves to the Government will not be treated as a draw on the past reserves of that statutory board if the Minister responsible for finance undertakes in writing to add those reserves of that statutory boad to the past reserves of the government;
b)a transfer by a relevant statuory boad of its reserves to a relevant Government company will not be treated as a draw on the past reserves of that statutory boad if the board of directors of that Government company by resoultion resrolves that those reserves of that statory board shall be added to the past reserves of that Government company; and
c)a transfer by a relevant statutory board of its reserves to another relevant statutory board will not be treated as a draw on the past reserves of the transferor statutory board if the transferee statutory board by resolution resolves, or any written law provides, that those reserves of the transferor statutory board shall be added to the past reserves of the transferee statutory board
Constitution of Republic of SIngapore (Amendment) Bill No. 12/2004
The changes proposed in this bill, which was passed later, allowed the Government to transfer its past reserves to statutory boards and government companies.
"the changes, which allow for an unemcumbered flow of reserves between the Government, key statutory boards and Governement companies..." (Today, "Reserves and loophold fears, 3 June 2004)
I'd say that this has great impact on the role of an elected president as a key to the national reserves, it will greatly reduce the check that the president has on the Government.
PAP MPs did not see the bill as a cause for concern. "Our understanding is that it does not compromise the second key," MP Tan Boo Wan.
"Once we accept that, we should have an implicit trust and confidence in how the Government manages our reserves. It is not in the interest of the country to have the specific allocation of the reserves subjected to public scrutiny," Mp Ong Kian Min. With all due respect, i believe this comment totally fly in the face of democracy. A completely paternalistic view which embodies a manifestation of distrust of the electorate. To put it simply, do you think the people are stupid or blind?
However, PM Lee (then DPM) gave a better and more convincing reason which was to 'enable more timely responses by the Government to changing economic or business conditions.' Seems like we have, once again, let pragmatism and efficiency rule the day. Never mind the constitution, never mind the rationale of having an elected president. As long as it makes things easier, it must be correct. Of cos, a balance must be struck between constitutionalism and flexibility, but i see the battle as between the constitution and convenience of the government, not flexibility.

2)
1994 Singapore Parliament Reports, Constitution of the Republic of SIngapore (Amendment No.2) Bill col 417 ff
Among the addition to the list of stat boards added, requiring the president's concurrence, Art 22B and D were introduced. More importantly, the president's discretion will be curb when the drawdown is for defence and security-related measures.
- president will not have power to veto such transactions
- such defence and security transactions will not be made public, even if they are likely to draw on the reserves.
- As an alternative, the transactions must be recommended by both the Chief of Defence Force and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, and then certified by bothe the PM and the Defence Minister.

To summarise, the President is elected by the people, highest office of the country as oppose to Chief of Defence Force and PS of MOF, who are not elected. What mandate do they have to act as an alternative safeguard?
Please do not bring up the Junzi theory, because the very fact that there is such a safeguard, is an indication of general distrust of those in power. To say that that two person proposed as alt are honourable men who can be trusted is just the irony of ironies.
If i may add a quote from Dr Kanwaljit Soin "...in introducing the Bill to have an Elected Presient with special powers,... the government was, in fact, "clipping its own wings". It seems to me that, in introducing this amendment, the Government is now trying to add on some feathers."

Well, as expected, to answer all these doubts, then DPM Lee said we had to balance between safeguards and flexibility. "Can they be suborned? Yes, sure. So can the President. So can the PM. What happens if the PM goes mad? God help us! you are looking for certainty and safety using fallible human digits. And you are trying to make a scheme which will give you that certainty, not a probability of one, but a probability of 99.9% that the system will work even if individual within it go wrong"
For one, i don't think the people would vote a potentially mad President or PM. Second, even if we cannot have a more certain than not kind of safeguard, at least we have ourselves to blame at the end of the day. If all kinds of human safeguards are fallible, two non-elected person vs one elected president, i think the case is crystal clear.

hai.. such a long post. i haven even included the Presidential Elections Council.. Maybe nex time.

Well, the usual, i'm raising these not because i'm Anti-PAP. I just felt people should have more information, which is available on the internet. and that there are too many policies in the name of efficiency, pragmatism which makes it difficult to reconcile the rationale of having those policies in the first place. For example GRC, EP, etc. The people have the right to know the impact of such deviation from the originally or superficial reasons of implementing these policies.

Maybe i am loving my country more. Because i bother.

it's a cycle.
i hate to admit it but it is true. I don't like it but i cant control it. i can only choose how i react to it. Only this time, it will be easier. Because past experience has taught me well, too well in fact. That there is no point to brood over it, to be bothered by something/someone which/whom you cant control.

Cant seems to concentrate on anything today. Wanted to write a post on Elected presidency and the political debate last week, but read too many things afterwards and i lost my train of thoughts.

To many things are happening around me, i'm losing it. Losing myself, my focus, my goals, which are the fundamentals of an individual. without these, nothing else exists. Only when i find them, will i be able to stand alone and find the meaning to what i am doing again.
I cannot derived my identity from others anymore. Feels like a hermit, always hiding behind others. Why do i need others approval? Why do i want someone else's recognition?
I'm bogged down by how others perceive me. Only to realise that, who are they to judge me? I'm the one to judge myself, i will give myself my own value, my identity, my pride and earn the respect for myself.

No longer dependent, no desire to be a proxy. You will do as you wish, while i'm my own master.

wAHhhhh i need money!!! I wanna buy new fone......... But i got no time to give tuition.. and i'm growing too fat!!!! HELP HELP HELPPPPPPP

"He's always been a goalscorer, and can bring important things to our team. He's not match-fit, how can he be after being out for three months? But he's so clever he can get a goal walking, where other players wouldn't running." Benitez on Fowler's fitness for next match against Birmingham 

In need to rant, but i've still got tons of readings before me, all of them to be done by tml's seminar. Not to mention i have friends coming over at after 12 noon.
My day yesterday was entirely ruin by a morning call. By a certain somebody. For the rest of the day, seems like fate has it that we have to quarrel for the rest of the day, incidents peppered throughout the day, escalating the tension. Neither of us has given in.
I know that, like many times before this, we cant see each other's point of view. I do not know what is he so insistent about certain things and he doesn't know why i do what i did.
Expectations. I almost neva lost my temper with my friends anymore, but i lose it with him many times. Maybe the frequency of seeing each other is a factor. I don't have much time for friends after dividing it between him, family and studies. My friends don't have much time for me either.
I have no solution to reconciling our differences. From the start, we don't have much in common. I did mention what i expect of this relationship, of a partner that i need (instead of want).
Being 20 going to 21, i have to look further. I've got my share of family responsibilities when i graduate and more. Already in debts before i work, my parents, my spinster aunt who has been taking care of us... Right now, i have my studies to worry about. I cannot handle someone who adds on to that.
I cannot keep worrying bout what my family thinks each time you do the things you do. I tried my best the make things easier for you, you think i'm forcing you. Can you even see my effort because i cant seems to sense urs?
Each time i feel i'm angry for a legitimate reason, you'll say things like "you din do this other thing either" so what? we're quits? why cant you address what i said den we can move on to 'this other thing'? Cant you see that this is not a math problem, you can't solve it by bringing something else up?

My love -
I told you before i neva show my love just by telling you i love you everyday. It is something more than that. Seeing you have trouble with getting to know my family, i try to make things easier for you. You have some problem with calling my grandma, i tried to cover up for you. Your fam needs something done, i'm ard to run the errand. You like to watch soccer, i learnt to watch. U're stressed, i tried to understand; You don't like people to force you to do things, i take things slow.
I have my times too i know, i can be very difficult. And i appreciate you for that.

I cannot tell you how to mix with people, how to handle real life problems.

He is a prince, living in the castle. Behind those walls, everyone is friendly, sincere, truthful and polite. The prince goes out once in a while, but the contact between him and the others outside is superficial. He thinks the world is beautiful like the world in his castle. He study many things, learned and well mannered.
He is one thing short of being perfect. Since young, people knew him naturally. People smile at him naturally. People around him loved him naturally.
As long as he lives in the castle, it is no use explaining how he need to learn how to make friends. Because there isn't such a need. As long as he stays there, he has no worries about handling commoners.

"The man who said "I'd rather be lucky than good" saw deeply into life. People are afraid to face how great a part of life is dependent on luck. It's scary to think so much is out of one's control. There are moments in a match when the ball hits the top of the net and for a split second it can either go forward or fall back. With a little luck it goes forward and you win. Or maybe it doesn't and you lose."
From the movie - Matchpoint

A wonderful movie that used the ordinary to show us the extraordinary. In the short 2 hours, the life of a social climbing ex-pro tennis player, Chris Wilton, unfolded before us. From a humble background, he went to London to teach tennis at an exclusive country club. His life took a better turn when he got to know Tom Hewett, son of a wealthy businessman(and many more turns afterwards). Tom's sister, who took a liking to Chris immediately. Things became complicated, when Chris met Tom's fiance, Nola Rice, a sexy American actress...

At a glance, this might seem to be a sleezy movie, where the lead male actor got into an affair, tried something extreme to end it. A typical you-take-a-wrong-step-in-life-you're-done-for-it kind of movie. But the beautiful twist at the end of the story, which incredibly impressed the theme of the whole movie, will at once change your perception of the movie.
The quality, the pace, the story were very well put together. A common thread ran throughout the movie: Tennis and Opera.
Personally, i particularly liked the part when Chris was facing his conscience. When he told himself that he had to push the guilt over before he was consumed by it. The two 'spirits' that embodied his conscience. This part was pretty redundant but the things that Chris said was cynical yet true.

Public law reading has become increasing interesting and depressing at the same time. And i began thinking to myself, what somebody mentioned to me after reading Catherine Lim's article in the Straits times.
He mentioned that Singaporeans aren't being indifferent, just because they choose economy over democracy, doesn't mean that they are reliant on the government. In another words, the people did choose, and they had chosen economic development over individual liberties/political democracy.

i've some problems with that which i couldn't pin point at the time he raised this, i had some time to think it through today. I'd like to raise some questions against this theory.
Again, i wanna clarify that, i have nothing against the government. I enjoy the lovely country that they are running right now, and staying in a constituency that almost always is a walk over. So if i may continue:

First and foremost, the theory that he has proposed is made on the assumption that economic development is mutually exclusive with political democracy.
By political democracy, as i understands it, simply means a levelled playing field for different political parties. Laws that facilitates political pluralism. It doesn't necessary mean that Parliament should consist of different parties, because that is up to the people to elect. But at the very least, give them some breathing space to move. This doesn't necessarily mean chaos or a decline in economic performance. Hence i personally dont think people need to choose economy OVER political democracy, because they can co-exist.

Second, when he said that the people CHOSE economy over political democracy, it is based on the assumption that there was a choice. Economic developments/performance as given and promised by one party, and others by other parties. It is based on the assumption that there IS a choice. I do not have the statistics, if i have to write a paper on this i will find out but there are many walk over constituencies for elections. When an area is a walk over, the incumbent MPs are reinstated on the Nomination Day. An area is a walk over if there are no one contesting for that area. So did the people choose? When no one steps up to challenge, does it mean the people are choosing? or can it mean that people are disillusioned or even cynical about the success rate of challenging?

Third, even if we assume there are choices, we do have opposition MPs like Chiam and Low in the parliament. The theory my friend has suggested is only fair if the choices are informed choices. Shan't elaborate. U can draw ur own conclusion. and i'm not responsible for it.

hai, i decided not to write the last point.
In case i get sued for defamation or arrested by ISA.
It is a depressing day and i wonder if it is because of my readings. How i wish i can type my tutor's academic article here.

I love my country, i respect the government.
At the end of the scrutiny, i can only conclude the power corrupts. Not in the monetary way, but people want to keep the power, retain it, perhaps not for personal gain but for whatever reasons, it cannot be justified. We may have jun zi as our government, what makes these jun zi think that they are the only jun zis or only they can get jun zi?

Risking it,
Wenrong

I was doing my public law reading and the SDP manifesto debate just kept cropping up in my mind. My lecturer mentioned that Low Thia Khiang post a letter in the forum yesterday. Unable to find yesterday's paper, i picked up today's Home, hoping to find PAP's reply to it. Instead, i saw a report on what Chiam said and another reader's letter supporting the PAP.

I should be continuing with my reading now but wanted to air my views somewhat, if i don't wanna write to the papers, the least i can do is write on my own blog. Just as a disclaimer, i do not have anything against PAP. On the contrary, i believe they have done well thus far, in managing Singapore and i'm grateful for that.
The problem that i have, is probably the inherent unfairness in the system that we have and the inadequacy of the opposition parties.

PAP singled out 4 of 52 manifestos of SDP and described them as 'time bomb' and 'poison'. Of they 4, SDP proposed to scrap the president elections, Group Representative Constituency system, the grassroots organisations and to issue subsidies for needy/poor people. PAP gave a point counter point argument against these manifestos, giving their reasons for these system respectively. What i failed to find, was the SDP's reasons for proposing these changes in the papers. The importance will be discussed later. There can only be two possibilities for this: (1) SDP did not mention; (2) The newspaper censored it?
it is for all of us to guess.

The reader who wrote into Forum today, supported the PAP's rationale of the GRC system. He mentioned the importance of having minority representatives in the parliament. More importantly, the fragile nature of our multicultural social fabric. I have to say that i agree absolutely with the rationale. But what are the effects of the GRC system?

1) Unequal voting rights
In order to make it really easy to understand, we'll start with an e.g. Area X is GRC constituency. Area Y is Single member consituency. With one vote, people in area X can vote in 3-6 members of parliament. However, with the same one vote, people in area Y can only vote in 1 MP.
Is it because Area X is bigger than Y, therefore there is a need for more MPs, therefore justifying the unequal voting power?
Art 12 subsection(1) of constitution of Singapore provides "All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law." Isn't this a clear, direct violation of our rights? So why is GRC in existence when the effect of it is unconstitutional?
May i challenge the readers, to look up which are the SMC and GRC with this unequal voting power in mind?

2) Coat Tailers
A GRC, becoming a town council later, has its implications too, moving away from the rationale of having GRC. As known, town council is in charge of the upkeep and maintenance of the estate, etc. Hence, people are advised to vote for a group, with a good leader, in case they get stuck in the lift and remain there. Because the leader of the Group they vote in, will head the town council. This give rise to the problem of Coat tailers.
Another senario to imagine: In the group of 6, X is a well-known character, with great leadership capacity, very good with people. Y has good relations with people. Z has been the representative of that area for pass 5 years. but there are three others whom no one has heard of. Compare this to another group, a,b,c,d,e,f are all rather unheard of, they have been campaigning hard, trying to win the people over.
But will you take the risk?
Or will you vote in the group with 3 promising rep, knowing they will do well? When the first group is elected, what happens to the other three in the group? They become MPs as well!

These are just to illustrate how important it is to tell the public why the opposition is proposing in their manifesto. Without knowing the effects of GRC system, i would support the rationale of having it as well.

due to time constraint and fear of being traced for writing this entry, i shall end my post.

But as a Singaporean, i think it is worrying when the majority party cannot differentiate themselves from the government institution anymore.
"This is the reality of politics. Every political party everywhere in the whold has a political programme fot the people. When they are in charge, they implement them. If they do their jobs well, they will be elected. If they bluff the people and cannot deliver on their promises, they will be out very fast, like the SDP MPs. They could not perform and they were out. This is the reality." - Mr Wong Kan Seng 1999 parliamentary debates.
- PAP's offer - upgrading for Cheng San constituent (which ceased to exist the following elections)
Offer was made by PM then, who's own constituent was a walk-over.
Food for thought, what would have happened if opposition won that time?

Risking it,
Wenrong