Friday, August 6, 2010

Parliament Parody

(Imagine if our PAP ministers kept it real...)

Mr Speaker,

I propose the following changes to our legislature I believe will benefit Singapore in terms demanded by and only understandable to ruling party of this country.

We need to have laws in place to justify certain governmental decisions, which most Singaporeans wrongly interpret to be non-decisions, non-action and lack of initiative. This government works very hard to ensure Singapore is a good place to live, work, play, work, retire, work, die, work, resurrect and work.

In this view, I propose we instate the “death index” as a measure to determining changes in policy. For example, so long as the “death index” for cyclists on the roads remain below 50 a year, the government will see no need and justification for a change in traffic infrastructure and rules. This will serve as an objective measure, regardless of race, language, religion and education level, from the elite to the daft like opposition party supporters.

This explains why the government understands public concern on construction workers sitting at the back of lorries, overloading them and posing a safety hazard both to themselves and to other motorists. Since we have pegged the death index at 1000 a year, the government feels it is not justifiable to make immediate changes to the laws concerning traffic safety. Furthermore, this is also economically justifiable, as productivity is not affected when 999 foreign workers die on our roads. At the same time, the blood of 999 foreign workers is not an amount threatening enough to clog our drains and cause floods in the event of torrential rain.

The government understands and appreciates public concern on numerous safety issues, but with this index, the Singaporean population will understand that we are doing our best to be efficient and optimal, even in implementation and enforcement.

The government also understands that there are public demands for higher safety standards in our military training. However, we are very safe, as the death index for military training is well below the tolerable 100 a year mark. Our hands are tied.

With respect to nation-building and ensure the sovereignty of Singapore, I propose a policy on population control. The government time and again has introduced the policies it deems necessary to ensure Singapore’s economic survival.

This time, our survival hinges on Singaporeans’ continual support for the ruling party of the nation. In view of this, I propose fathers and mothers from households supporting the opposition to stop at one child. Financial incentives as well as tax rebates will be given to them if they undergo vasectomy, ligation, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, hysterectomy and/or castration. This way, opposition-voting families will not be able to replace themselves and pose a threat to the political and social stability of the nation. The ruling party cannot risk losing support, otherwise investors will pull out of Singapore, and your daughters will become maids in other countries.

Another threat to national security is divergent thinking. I propose to criminalise sociology and poststructuralism, as these pose radical threats to our delicate social fabric. At the same time, I propose that we preserve the zero-sum discourse on the dichotomy welfare-tax. It is very early for us to do this, but the earlier the better. Many educated Singaporeans already believe that if we were to have more welfare, taxes will have to increase, never mind the billions of dollars we generate from our economy every year. We have to preserve this mentality in Singaporeans, so that we can ideologically stay away from the idea of a welfare state. This dichotomy is important to our nation’s survival, because with the savings, we can invest more in making Singapore look good to the rest of world, and when foreign investments come in, we create more jobs poor Singaporeans would be grateful for. At the same time, this dichotomy will draw attention away from the vocal minority of Singaporeans who always express concern with our use and allocation of public funds.

With these few proposals, I believe Singapore will become a better place. We need to target the mindsets of people to win their support. And furthermore, the ruling party will also not be wrongly accused to be using public funds to sustain its political legitimacy. We know better and we know best. Majulah Singapura!

1 comment:

雅明修任 said...