US Electoral College ensures inclusive democracy

Nov 08, 2012

MR CHO Yan Fatt argued that there cannot be true democracy with the US Electoral College system ("No true democracy with US Electoral College system"; Forum Online, Tuesday).

While is true that the winning candidate in the presidential election may get fewer popular votes, the Electoral College system is respected for its historical roots, and many factors considered then remain relevant today.

[No they haven't.]

The United States is a federal union, with each state having the autonomy to run its own affairs, given the diversity of its society.

The Electoral College system gives greater weight to the smaller states - one of the checks and balances that the US Constitution values, so no big state can dominate the general election.

[Instead, the whole election is just dominated by a few swing states - Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, for example. California with 55 Electors are ignored because they are a "safe" Democrat state. Texas with 38 gets scant attention because it is a safe Republican state. Instead candidates expend their time and resources on the swing states - those states who are likely to be swayed by political ads. The Electoral College system does not prevent that. Instead it may be argued that the system causes this problem.]

In the case of a popular vote system, regions which are sparsely populated would not merit the attention of presidential candidates.

[So how many Presidential candidates make visits to or campaign in Alaska because of the electoral college system? Or Hawaii for that matter?]

However, under the Electoral College system, a candidate would need to get a spread of votes from across the country by developing plurality of support, thus ensuring that the smaller states in the union have a say in the election as well.

[I am so glad the internet does not transmit smells.]

The US founding fathers understood the dangers of direct democracy and struggled to create a system that not only reflected the will of the people, but also respected the minority.

Thus, the Electoral College system encourages moderation, compromise, coherence and inclusiveness of the United States as a nation.

Jonathan Lim

[Mindless regurgitation of textbook answers. Watch this Youtube video for an excellent analysis of the problems of the electoral college system. So "moderation, compromise, coherence and inclusiveness" my ass.

The Electoral College system was put in place because of the time lag in communications in the 18th century, and the vast size of the country required voters to send representatives (Electors) to the Capitol to elect the president.

Technology has improved quite a bit since then.

However if you want to argue that the Electoral College system should be kept because it helps candidates to focus their efforts and energies on just a handful of swing states instead of criss-crossing the nation trying to whip up that "plurality of support"... Ever heard of TV or the Internet?]

Harping about the F1

Oct 04, 2012

F1 reveals ethical dissonance


THANK you, Ms Anna Quek, for so eloquently expressing the concerns about the Government's decision to extend the hosting of the Formula One (F1) race for another five years ("S'pore GP: Full disclosure, please"; last Saturday).

[I don't know why you are thanking her. Her points were nothing related to yours. Oh! You were just using it as a hook! Or simply to form solidarity of "SG against the F1". I see. No logical or philosophical alignment other than a simple common foe: the F1.]

Singapore risks evolving into a country of contradictions.

[Wrong. Singapore is already a country of contradictions. Farrer Park is not on Farrer Road. Marina Bay Station is not at Marina Bay Sands. Esplanade Station does not open directly to the Esplanade. There are 4 different brands of "Katong Laksa" all claiming to be the authentic one. Right in the middle of our city centre, we have a cricket club and how many Singaporeans even know the rules of cricket let alone play it?]

We welcome casinos and try to teach values in our schools.

[No. No. No. We teach students to be disciplined and want our soldiers to think!]

We host a clearly environmentally hostile race, while we make increasingly loud noises about sustainability.

[We do? (make increasingly loud noises about sustainability)?]

We also claim great pride in our reputation for integrity.

Yet, integrity is about doing the right thing, even if it costs one personally.

[So... JBJ, CSJ are men of integrity, but since CST and LTK have never been sued by the PAP and so never suffered personal costs, they have no integrity, or at best less integrity than JBJ and CSJ?]

It means having to make financial sacrifices in order to preserve and build a long-term reputation.

[Like Ng Eng Hen giving up his multi-million practice to make just about $1m as a minister? Or K Shanmugan giving up his multi-million dollar law practice? or Vivian Balakrishnan?]

I am increasingly concerned that we are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices because we cannot see beyond dollars and cents.

[Like how your definition of integrity is pegged to financial costs? How about a simple, "Integrity is simply doing what one says one will do and saying what one will do"? Like CST? What's with all these personal costs and financial sacrifices crap? Integrity - it's not real until you put a price on it.]

If we do not watch it, we may one day be called ethical pragmatists, which is an oxymoron.

Mak Yuen Teen

[Thank you ethical moron. My problem with your letter is your assumption that contradictions are an evil. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind and the same time and still retain the ability to function" says F. Scott Fitzgerald.

There is an obvious failure to function here.

Contradictions abound in life. Mature people navigate these contradictions and can even hold opposing ideas in their mind at the same time. They don't selectively seek to resolve the "contradictions" that contradict their wants.

Here's a contradiction: we value tolerance. So here is an example of me being intolerant of intolerance!

Let's see what Anna Quek actually wrote.]

Sep 29, 2012

S'pore GP: Full disclosure, please


I AM dismayed that Singapore has committed itself to a further five years of Formula One ("Five more years for S'pore race", Sunday; and "F1 'to bring bigger benefits' in next lap", Tuesday).

[Narcissistic delusion. Assumes we are concerned about her dismay. Or that her dismay amounts to an earth shattering catastrophe that needs urgent attention to address or prevent.]

I am unconvinced by its purported benefits and worry about the ethical implications from the promotion of the event.

[See "Narcissistic Delusion" above. Assumes that others should be similarly unconvinced.]

The only certainty about F1 is the financial outlay for each race, amounting to about $150 million, with the Government co-funding 60 per cent of approved costs.

[Her first factual assertion.... and it's WRONG! OK, possibly wrong. The figures she stated were the conditions of the first 5 years deal. We have not been told what the deal is for the next 5 years.]

It is widely acknowledged that Singapore paid a hefty premium for the first deal, and there were expectations that the Government would negotiate better terms for a second contract.

It is disappointing that there has been no disclosure of the actual financial terms of a deal involving millions of dollars of public funds. Instead, Singaporeans are asked to place their faith in "consultants" who claim favourable international publicity generated by the F1 glitz.

[Life is disappointment. Get used to it.]

I am sceptical that any for-profit company would pooh-pooh such a trophy event and risk incurring the wrath of its clients.

[There's healthy scepticism, and poisonous cynicism, and pathological paranoia. She has a 1 in 3 chance of being healthy. Consultants thrive on the value they provide to their clients, and their reputation depends on it. Bad advice can kill their reputation. Ask Arthur Anderson. Similarly, I am sceptical that any myopic, idealistic, xenophobic puritan with no business experience or business acumen, would approve such an event and risk not being able to impose her values and wants on others.]

Even assuming the survey results are representative, there is no certainty that favourable impressions translate into actual benefits for Singapore and the average Singaporean.

At any rate, $150 million is a princely sum for a three-day "marketing campaign".

[And here is the essence and evidence of the naivete of the idealistic, myopic, xenophobic puritan with the mono-factorial decision-making heuristic. You can spend $150m (less actually for the SG govt) for EFFECTIVE marketing that reaches your TARGET audience in 3 days and it would be better than spending $15m for a year long campaign that is ineffective. Or $50m. Or $100m. Or even $150m for a year long campaign that is not as effective. Judging the worth simply by the cost is precisely why we need consultants and not Ms Quek and her ilk.]

I am also curious how the "incremental tourism receipts" of $560 million, from 2008 to last year, were attributed to F1, or how the fantastical "billions" in revenue projected by the consultants were arrived at.

[Finally! A good question!]

Is every tourist asked upon arrival at Changi Airport if they came specifically because of F1, and if so, were their wallets tagged and monitored?

[Followed immediately by a stupid research methodology!]

How were the losses suffered by Marina Bay area businesses and commuter inconvenience accounted for?

[Another good question! I think those businesses have been ignored by the govt! What do you think we should do Ms Quek?]

I believe I am not alone in noticing that there have been many more "super-cars" on our roads since the introduction of F1.

[... And... other than that short question, she has also ignored the fate of those "few, those unhappy few" businesses.... And has instead decided to imply that F1 has caused a surge in "super-cars" in Singapore! Correlation is not causation, as any researcher can tell you. ]

On our Little Red Dot, the allure of super-cars probably lies in their bragging rights, driven home by deliberate loud revving and speeding (if only for 10m).

While it may be a stretch to blame F1 for the anti-social behaviour of some drivers, the marketing thrust of F1 - fast cars, grid girls, extravagant parties and "bling-bling" - is nothing short of crass consumption, with its corrosive effect on social values.

[And so she admits it is a stretch to blame the F1... and then proceeds to cast her disapproving eye on crass consumption, and pass judgement on its"corrosive effect" on social values. Why corrosive? I don't know. Bravo Ms Quek! In one sentence, you have managed to start with understated research methodology, and jump straight to the conclusion you had already decided! Bravo! Such intellectual sleight-of-hand! Mental illusion that is exceeded only by your narcissistic delusion! Beautiful were it not also opinionated and misleading.]

Hosting F1 in Singapore will appear much less triumphal once its true economic and social costs are weighed against a realistic assessment of "incremental receipts".

Anna Quek (Ms)

[When we require a realistic assessment of the costs and benefits of hosting the F1, we can be sure that you will be the most biased and unqualified person to make that assessment. We may have to ask one of those for-profit consultants to run the assessment. Again. You will probably be disappointed. Again.

Tough.

Deal.

Personally, I have no interest in the F1, or to want to watch it up close and in person. This is a made for TV spectacle, and I would watch only for the thrill of seeing slips, slides, skids, crashes, collisions, and explosions. From the safety of my home or a sports bar somewhere. I hate unrelentingly loud noises. I hate packed-like-sardines crowds.  Would I be unhappy if F1 were not renewed for 5 more years in SG? No. It bothers me not one bit. But it matters to many others. So for a week or so, downtown SG is off-limits to me, by my own choice. Big deal. So the F1 is "environmentally hostile". If so, it is so regardless of where it is held and affects the global climate eventually.]

The messy limit to tray returning

Sep 29, 2012

[Another excuse-making lazy Singaporean!]

LET'S get real ("Tray-return campaigns have worked before" by the Singapore Kindness Movement; Monday).

How do you return trays for "messy" meals such as chilli crab, bak kut teh and fish head curry?

[Riiiight! Lots of Hawker centre stalls sell Chilli Crab, and Fish Head Curry.]

There is no doubt that the tray-return campaign had worked and is successful in certain places like school cafetarias, army camps, McDonald's outlets and the foodcourt at Ikea.

But in all these establishments, the foods sold or catered are simple dishes like noodles and rice, or just finger food like burgers, chicken wings and french fries.

These are foods that do not generate a lot of waste like bones and gravy.

I do not want to sound pessimistic or negative. [Try harder! You're failing miserably!] But from my observation, the tray-return system is not so easily implementable in establishments where messy food is on the menu.

These items generate a lot of food waste, and woe betide the operators who want their customers to clear their soiled crockery and food waste after their sumptuous meals.

[Most of these stalls are either zichar stalls or restaurants. Yes. Maybe for these, the stall operators have an incentive and a vested interest in keeping their high-value (or higher value) customers happy. Or for operational and logistical efficiency, they could or should clean up after their customers? First of all, it is tray return. If nothing else leave your food waste (bones, bowls of leftover gravy, etc) within your tray. Return tray with everything on it. Second, maybe it's time to learn how to eat with a little more decorum and keep things neat instead of spraying your bones and gravy all over the place?]
The customers will either go to another outlet, or the restaurant floors will be covered with food waste and gravy.

For similar reasons, the campaign has not been successful in hawker centres.

[No. Not similar at all. So it would seem that all your arguments above are for non-hawker centres?]

There is a need to look into the prerequisites for a successful campaign this time round. It a waste of funds to relaunch it if no modification is made.

For the campaign to be successfully implemented, especially in hawker centres and foodcourts, the operators have to restrict the food items that can be sold in the establishments.

So, chilli crab, fish head curry, bak kut teh, cockles, clams and food that generate messy waste should be banned in hawker centres earmarked for the campaign. But it will not be easy to enforce a ban on the types of food that can be sold in existing hawker centres without attracting a backlash.

[No. No. No. You are solving the wrong problem. Messy, bone-spitting, gravy spraying, soup-spilling, excuse-making, lazy-farkers who do not reduce their mess or return their trays should not be allowed to eat at hawker centres.]

Hence, the relevant authorities should enforce it and the tray-return system in the new hawker centres that are being built over the next few years.

Soh Ah Yuen

[Stupid argument. Sets up a false premise, unrealistic assumptions and then concludes it cannot be done. As good as arguing that car park space is too small for buses and lorries and so parking spaces should be made larger.

So his argument literally is, I'm a messy eater! I love eating messy food! The messier the better! This new rule discriminates against lovers of messy food!

Stop making excuses.

Update: The letter below is written by a better person than me. Or he puts his point across in a non-confrontation (or at least less confrontational than me) manner. Yes, we cannot pretend to be "job-creators" when we are just being messy, inconsiderate slobs.]


Oct 20, 2012

 

Cleaners picking up trays is not the answer

 

 

I disagree with Benjy Kip, who wrote the letter Pay 10 Cents For A Cleaner To Pick Up Tray (Life!, Oct 13). Graciousness in the form of keeping tables clean for the next person should not deprive cleaners of their jobs.

They will still be needed to wipe dirty tables and take soiled dishes to the washing area. Creating messy tables to ensure jobs for unskilled people is a step backwards in building a gracious society.

Let us be more creative in solving this ungracious and unhygienic practice at hawker centres instead of resisting change to anti-social habits. Employing more cleaners is not the answer.

Just visit any hawker centre during peak hours and on Sunday mornings, and you will notice that the cleaners cannot keep pace with the fast turnover of customers.

Lim Jit Chaing

Ferrari crash: Regulator should step in

Sep 18, 2012


I AGREE with Mr Abbas Vakharia ("Fatal Ferrari crash: Insurer's stance cause for consumer concern"; last Saturday).

AXA's insurance policy clearly states that it covers a motor vehicle that is accidentally damaged by the operation of several named perils, including "collision".

But it does have a clause stating that the policy does not cover "any wilful act and/or wilful negligence" of the insured or an authorised driver.

A "wilful act" means that the Ferrari driver intended to collide with the taxi and even take his own life. While the driver was reckless, I cannot imag(in)e that he had intended to cause the collision.

I hope that the Insurance Commissioner's office will discuss this issue with AXA and clarify if its stand is justified, based on the circumstances.

Consumers need to be assured that insurance companies will act fairly in meeting their obligations.

Special attention is required from the regulator, as motor insurance is compulsory by law.


Tan Kin Lian
President
Financial Services Consumer Association

[I respect Mr Tan's expertise and experience in the insurance industry and value his contribution and input on this matter. However, while he is right to say that a "wilful act" would imply that the driver of the Ferrari intended to crash and die is an unreasonable assumption, he has unfortunately ignored the second part which is "wilful negligence", and exaggerated the first.  


In this case, there was probably "wilful negligence" on the part of the driver who should have known that going at more than twice (and maybe even 3 times) the speed limit was dangerous. The fact that the car sped through a red light about 4 seconds after the lights had turned red was eitther a wilful act (he intentionally ran the red light), or wilful negligence (he didn't see the red light). And at the speed he was going, either was dangerously fatal.  


The larger question is why would the insurance company do this?   Of course to save money for the company.   And if the driver were a poor man with no money and the victims needed the compensation, this would be a travesty.


But the driver was not poor and his estate can pay, and making his estate pay is better justice and better disincentive.   What this means is that in future if any other owner of supercars were to drive as recklessly with wilful disregard for safety or rules or the lives of others, their insurance company with not cover their recklessness. They or the family they leave behind will pay for their recklessness. And this should sound a warning to other supercar owners.   Mr Tan is right to be concerned, but he should also see the larger picture.]

The cost of clearing a tray ...

From Chiew York Hun

TODAYONLINE

Sep 07, 2012

I disagree with the opinion in the letter "No excuses please, just clear your trays" (Aug 31) from two perspectives.

First, the comparison with the police and doctors is flawed. The police would never encourage citizens to break the law and a doctor would never jeopardise his patients' health just to keep their jobs, whereas a food and beverage business would always encourage people to patronise.

Manpower and operating costs such as for cleaning services would have been taken into account in the price a customer pays. It is facetious to view tray return as a social grace when it is a paid-for service.

For instance, is it ungracious to have chambermaids make the beds in hotel rooms? Would one insist that it is social grace to refresh the room for the next guest?

Second, those employed to clear trays are often unskilled elderly with little chance to "elevate" their job. Clearing trays, wiping tables and washing dishes are critical processes that must go on simultaneously to maximise patron turnover.

Therefore, either there is separate manpower to do the wiping and washing or these elderly staff are also expected to do them. In any case, if customers start clearing their trays, it would reduce workload.

What could that mean other than a manpower cut in a profit-driven business obsessed with productivity and efficiency?

Asking customers to clear their trays benefits only the F&B company's bottom line and not other customers, as people are already employed to do that at a cost worked into the prices we pay. More importantly, these employees are a group who would have difficulty getting a job elsewhere. It is an irony that one deemed as gracious is endangering the livelihood of some needy elderly.

[Only a Singaporean can rationalise laziness and inconsideration with logic surpassed only by self-righteous indignation that anyone would dare suggest that he should clear his own table. He should hire someone to wipe his ass. Hey! Think of all the jobs that would create for the poor uncles and aunties with no better skills.]

One size does not fit all

by Conrad Raj

Jun 18, 2012

TODAYONLINE

Like many other products, our property market caters to a variety of tastes and pockets.

The S'pore I don't want to see in 2032

From James Poh Ching Ping

Jun 18, 2012

I refer to Dr Jason Kho's I Say piece "The S'pore I want to see in 2032" (June 11), about the Singapore he still wants to call home in 20 years' time. In contrast, I wish to express what I do not want to see in 2032.

I do not want, the minute I leave my home, to have to pay to use the roads or the expressways.

[So you want free petrol, issit? In any case, don't, worry, in future ERP will be very friendly, you won't be charged the minute you leave your home. You will be charged before you leave.]

I do not want to see more independent secondary schools which further divide the rich and the poor, as it is obvious that their academic and enrichment programmes are costlier than those of other schools.

As a parent, I do not want children to be able to telephone the authorities to report that their father is spanking them, as is the case in some countries. In Asian society, it is a norm to discipline an ill-behaved child so long as it is not abuse.

[So you still want to have naughty children to spank?]

I do not want the Government to liberalise same-sex marriages, as it would go against the policy of encouraging a higher birth rate to maintain a good population size.

[So you want to make gays and lesbians produce children?]

I do not want to see more shoebox apartments and congested public housing, even though Singapore is land-scarce. Architects should be creative to maximise land use and ensure the right housing proximity, not like in Hong Kong.

[Hmmm... maybe you should rethink your gay marriage ban. Firstly, a good size population will require more apartments, and second, some of the best creative architects are gay. But if you ban gay marriage, they may not be here to apply their creative solutions to housing.]

I do not want to see a lack of social etiquette in public places, such as on public transport. It is rude, for instance, to use electronic gadgets so openly here, compared to Japan and in Europe.

[Ya! much better if they use it furtively. You know, like terrorists.]

I do not want to see more "Fine" signage. There should be a balance between legal and social discipline. Indeed, Singapore is an orderly society where most citizens are law-abiding.

[Of course, no need "fine" signage. You should have spanked the anti-socialness out of them!]

I do not want fast-food outlets to outgrow the traditional food court or hawker centre. Although Singapore has a busy workforce, it is equally important that health comes first.

I do not want any overuse of robots or productivity gadgets to the extent of replacing customer service personnel. We should continue to upkeep the Singapore spirit and show the world what is uniquely Singapore through our people.

[er... that we are uniquely technophobic? You do realise that many of our customer service personnel over the phone are in India?]

I do not want to see a place where one could only survive or succeed with academic achievements and wealth. There should be space for people with skills and who are hardworking enough to make one's day worthwhile.

[My suggestion is that on Dec 31 2031, if you are still alive, you should poke out your eyes. This will guaranteed that you will not see all those things you don't want to see.

People have a vision for the future. Only a "unique Singaporean" can turn his complaints into a non-vision. Bravo! you have managed to set a new low for what is often criticised as Singapore's lack of vision.]