Binary Options UK - 2020's Best Trading Brokers

GE2020: The Roar of the Swing Voter

Hi everyone, this is my first ever post here.
I run a little website called The Thought Experiment where I talk about various issues, some of them Singapore related. And one of my main interests is Singaporean politics. With the GE2020 election results, I thought I should pen down my take on what us as the electorate were trying to say.
If you like what I wrote, I also wrote another article on the state of play for GE2020 during the campaigning period, as well as 2 other articles related to GE2015 back when it was taking place.
If you don't like what I wrote, that's ok! I think the beauty of freedom of expression is that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm always happy to get feedback, because I do think that more public discourse about our local politics helps us to be more politically aware as a whole.
Just thought I'll share my article here to see what you guys make of it :D
Article Starts Here:
During the campaigning period, both sides sought to portray an extreme scenario of what would happen if voters did not vote for them. The Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) warned that Singaporeans that their political opponents “might eventually replace the government after July 10”. Meanwhile, the Worker’s Party (WP) stated that “there was a real risk of a wipeout of elected opposition MPs at the July 10 polls”.
Today is July 11th. As we all know, neither of these scenarios came to pass. The PAP comfortably retained its super-majority in Parliament, winning 83 out of 93 elected MP seats. But just as in GE2011, another Group Representation Constituency (GRC) has fallen to the WP. In addition, the PAP saw its vote share drop drastically, down almost 9% to 61.2% from 69.9% in GE2015.
Singapore’s electorate is unique in that a significant proportion is comprised of swing voters: Voters who don’t hold any blind allegiance to any political party, but vote based on a variety of factors both micro and macro. The above extreme scenarios were clearly targeted at these swing voters. Well, the swing voters have made their choice, their roar sending 4 more elected opposition MPs into Parliament. This article aims to unpack that roar and what it means for the state of Singaporean politics going forward.
1. The PAP is still the preferred party to form Singapore’s Government
Yes, this may come across as blindingly obvious, but it still needs to be said. The swing voter is by its very definition, liable to changes of opinion. And a large factor that determines how a swing voter votes is their perception of how their fellow swing voters are voting. If swing voters perceive that most swing voters are leaning towards voting for the opposition, they might feel compelled to vote for the incumbent. And if the reverse is true, swing voters might feel the need to shore up opposition support.
Why is this so? This is because the swing voter is trying to push the vote result into a sweet spot – one that lies between the two extreme scenarios espoused by either side. They don’t want the PAP to sweep all 93 seats in a ‘white tsunami’. Neither do they want the opposition to claim so much territory that the PAP is too weak to form the Government on its own. But because each swing voter only has a binary choice: either they vote for one side or the other (I’m ignoring the third option where they simply spoil their vote), they can’t very well say “I want to vote 0.6 for the PAP and 0.4 for the Opposition with my vote”. And so we can expect the swing voter bloc to continue being a source of uncertainty for both sides in future elections, as long as swing voters are still convinced that the PAP should be the Government.
2. Voters no longer believe that the PAP needs a ‘strong mandate’ to govern. They also don’t buy into the NCMP scheme.
Throughout the campaign period, the PAP repeatedly exhorted voters to vote for them alone. Granted, they couldn’t very well give any ground to the opposition without a fight. And therefore there was an attempt to equate voting for the PAP as voting for Singapore’s best interests. However, the main message that voters got was this: PAP will only be able to steer Singapore out of the Covid-19 pandemic if it has a strong mandate from the people.
What is a strong mandate, you may ask? While no PAP candidate publicly confirmed it, their incessant harping on the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme as the PAP’s win-win solution for having the PAP in power and a largely de-fanged opposition presence in parliament shows that the PAP truly wanted a parliament where it held every single seat.
Clearly, the electorate has different ideas, handing Sengkang GRC to the WP and slashing the PAP’s margins in previous strongholds such as West Coast, Choa Chu Kang and Tanjong Pagar by double digit percentages. There is no doubt from the results that swing voters are convinced that a PAP supermajority is not good for Singapore. They are no longer convinced that to vote for the opposition is a vote against Singapore. They have realized, as members of a maturing democracy surely must, that one can vote for the opposition, yet still be pro-Singapore.
3. Social Media and the Internet are rewriting the electorate’s perception.
In the past, there was no way to have an easily accessible record of historical events. With the only information source available being biased mainstream media, Singaporeans could only rely on that to fill in the gaps in their memories. Therefore, Operation Coldstore became a myth of the past, and Chee Soon Juan became a crackpot in the eyes of the people, someone who should never be allowed into Parliament.
Fast forward to today. Chee won 45.2% of the votes in Bukit Batok’s Single Member Constituency (SMC). His party-mate, Dr. Paul Tambyah did even better, winning 46.26% of the votes in Bukit Panjang SMC. For someone previously seen as unfit for public office, this is an extremely good result.
Chee has been running for elections in Singapore for a long time, and only now is there a significant change in the way he is perceived (and supported) by the electorate. Why? Because of social media and the internet, two things which the PAP does not have absolute control over. With the ability to conduct interviews with social media personalities as well as upload party videos on Youtube, he has been able to display a side of himself to people that the PAP did not want them to see: someone who is merely human just like them, but who is standing up for what he believes in.
4. Reserved Election Shenanigans and Tan Cheng Block: The electorate has not forgotten.
Tan Cheng Bock almost became our President in 2011. There are many who say that if Tan Kin Lian and Tan Jee Say had not run, Tony Tan would not have been elected. In March 2016, Tan Cheng Bock publicly declared his interest to run for the next Presidential Election that would be held in 2017. The close result of 2011 and Tan Cheng Bock’s imminent candidacy made the upcoming Presidential Election one that was eagerly anticipated.
That is, until the PAP shut down his bid for the presidency just a few months later in September 2016, using its supermajority in Parliament to pass a “reserved election” in which only members of a particular race could take part. Under the new rules that they had drawn up for themselves, it was decreed that only Malays could take part. And not just any Malay. The candidate had to either be a senior executive managing a firm that had S$500 million in shareholders’ equity, or be the Speaker of Parliament or a similarly high post in the public sector (the exact criteria are a bit more in-depth than this, but this is the gist of it. You can find the full criteria here). And who was the Speaker of Parliament at the time? Mdm Halimah, who was conveniently of the right race (Although there was some hooha about her actually being Indian). With the extremely strict private sector criteria and the PAP being able to effectively control who the public sector candidate was, it came as no surprise that Mdm Halimah was declared the only eligible candidate on Nomination Day. A day later, she was Singapore’s President. And all without a single vote cast by any Singaporean.
Of course, the PAP denied that this was a move specifically aimed at blocking Tan Cheng Bock’s bid for the presidency. Chan Chun Sing, Singapore’s current Minister of Trade and Industry, stated in 2017 that the Government was prepared to pay the political price over making these changes to the Constitution.
We can clearly see from the GE2020 results that a price was indeed paid. A loss of almost 9% of vote share is very significant, although a combination of the first-past-the-post rule and the GRC system ensured that the PAP still won 89.2% of the seats in Parliament despite only garnering 61.2% of the votes. On the whole, it’s naught but a scratch to the PAP’s overwhelming dominance in Parliament. The PAP still retains its supermajority and can make changes to the Constitution anytime that it likes. But the swing voters have sent a clear signal that they have not been persuaded by the PAP’s rationale.
5. Swing Voters do not want Racial Politics.
In 2019, Heng Swee Keat, Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister and the man who is next in line to be Prime Minister (PM) commented that Singapore was not ready to have a non-Chinese PM. He further added that race is an issue that always arises at election-time in Singapore.
Let us now consider the GE2015 results. Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Singapore’s Senior Minister and someone whom many have expressed keenness to be Singapore’s next PM, obtained 79.28% of the vote share in Jurong GRC. This was above even the current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who scored 78.63% in Ang Mo Kio GRC. Tharman’s score was the highest in the entire election.
And now let us consider the GE2020 results. Tharman scored 74.62% in Jurong, again the highest scorer of the entire election, while Hsien Loong scored 71.91%. So Tharman beat the current PM again, and by an even bigger margin than the last time. Furthermore, Swee Keat, who made the infamous comments above, scored just 53.41% in East Coast.
Yes, I know I’m ignoring a lot of other factors that influenced these results. But don’t these results show conclusively that Heng’s comments were wrong? We have an Indian leading both the current and future PM in both elections, but yet PAP still feels the need to say that Singapore “hasn’t arrived” at a stage where we can vote without race in mind. In fact, this was the same rationale that supposedly led to the reserved presidency as mentioned in my earlier point.
The swing voters have spoken, and it is exceedingly clear to me that the electorate does not care what our highest office-holders are in terms of race, whether it be the PM or the President. Our Singapore pledge firmly states “regardless of race”, and I think the results have shown that we as a people have taken it to heart. But has the PAP?
6. Voters will not be so easily manipulated.
On one hand, Singaporeans were exhorted to stay home during the Covid-19 pandemic. Contact tracing became mandatory, and groups of more than 5 are prohibited.
But on the other hand, we are also told that it’s absolutely necessary to hold an election during this same period, for Singaporeans to wait in long lines and in close proximity to each other as we congregate to cast our vote, all because the PAP needs a strong mandate.
On one hand, Heng Swee Keat lambasted the Worker’s Party, claiming that it was “playing games with voters” over their refusal to confirm if they would accept NCMP seats.
But on the other hand, Heng Swee Keat was moved to the East Coast GRC at the eleventh hour in a surprise move to secure the constituency. (As mentioned above, he was aptly rewarded for this with a razor-thin margin of just 53.41% of the votes.)
On one hand, Masagos Zulkifli, PAP Vice-Chairman stated that “candidates should not be defined by a single moment in time or in their career, but judged instead by their growth throughout their life”. He said this in defense of Ivan Lim, who appears to be the very first candidate in Singaporean politics to have been pushed into retracting his candidacy by the power of non-mainstream media.
But on the other hand, the PAP called on the WP to make clear its stand on Raeesah Khan, a WP candidate who ran (and won) in Sengkang GRC for this election, stating that the Police investigation into Raeesah’s comments made on social media was “a serious matter which goes to the fundamental principles on which our country has been built”.
On one hand, Chan Chun Sing stated in 2015, referring to SingFirst’s policies about giving allowances to the young and the elderly, “Some of them promised you $300 per month. I say, please don’t insult my residents. You think…. they are here to be bribed?”
On the other hand, the PAP Government has just given out several handouts under its many budgets to help Singaporeans cope with the Covid-19 situation. [To be clear, I totally approve of these handouts. What I don’t approve is that the PAP felt the need to lambast similar policies as bribery in the past. Comparing a policy with a crime is a political low blow in my book.]
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. And so did the electorate in this election, putting their vote where it counted to show their disdain for the heavy-handedness and double standards that the PAP has displayed for this election.
Conclusion
I don’t say the above to put down the PAP. The PAP would have you believe that to not support them is equivalent to not wanting what’s best for Singapore. This is a false dichotomy that must be stamped out, and I am glad to see our swing voters taking a real stand with this election.
No, I say the above as a harsh but ultimately supportive letter to the PAP. As everyone can see from the results, we all still firmly believe that the PAP should be the Government. We still have faith that PAP has the leadership to take us forward and out of the Covid-19 crisis.
But we also want to send the PAP a strong signal with this vote, to bring them down from their ivory towers and down to the ground. Enough with the double standards. Enough with the heavy-handedness. Singaporeans have clearly stated their desire for a more mature democracy, and that means more alternative voices in Parliament. The PAP needs to stop acting as the father who knows it all, and to start acting as the bigger brother who can work hand in hand with his alternative younger brother towards what’s best for the entire family: Singapore.
There is a real chance that the PAP will not listen, though. As Lee Hsien Loong admitted in a rally in 2006, “if there are 10, 20… opposition members in Parliament… I have to spent my time thinking what is the right way to fix them”.
Now, the PAP has POFMA at its disposal. It still has the supermajority in Parliament, making them able to change any law in Singapore, even the Constitution at will. We have already seen them put these tools to use for its own benefit. Let us see if the PAP will continue as it has always done, or will it take this opportunity to change itself for the better. Whatever the case, we will be watching, and we will be waiting to make our roar heard once again five years down the road.
Majulah Singapura!
Article Ends Here.
Here's the link to the actual article:
https://thethoughtexperiment.org/2020/07/11/ge2020-the-roar-of-the-swing-vote
And here's the link to the other political articles I've written about Singapore:
https://thethoughtexperiment.org/2020/07/07/ge2020-the-state-of-play/
https://thethoughtexperiment.org/2015/09/10/ge2015-voting-wisely/
https://thethoughtexperiment.org/2015/09/05/expectations-of-the-opposition/
submitted by sharingan87 to singapore [link] [comments]

Vertextrades.com Review: 2%-3.5% each working day for 50-75 working days

Vertextrades.com is a high yield investment program which provides long term deposit plans. It started on 26th May 2020. You can get 2%-3.5% each working day for 50–75 working days, this program provides profitable rewards for promoters. I listed it into Standard listing. My first withdrawal request was already processed successfully into my PerfectMoney wallet yesterday. Now let me introduce it to you.
Started: 2020–05–26
My Deposit: $200
The amount of 200 USD has been withdrawn from your account. Accounts: U3869878->U21524869. Memo: Shopping Cart Payment. . Date: 13:10 19.06.20. Batch: 319883157.
Investment Plans
Invest $30–5000, earn 2% each working day for 75 working days and principal included
Invest $5001–10000, earn 2.25% each working day for 70 working days and principal included
Invest $10001–20000, earn 2.5% each working day for 65 working days and principal included
Invest $20001–100000, earn 3.5% each working day for 50 working days and principal included
These are all the plans Vertextrades.com provides. Since trading takes place only 5 days a week, you will receive return on investment from Monday to Friday. I think the most suitable plan is the first one for all investors, because you only need $30 to start your investment journey. Let me take an example:
if you deposit $100, then you can earn 2% daily from Monday to Friday, and you can withdrawal or reinvest the money at any time as your willings. After 75 working days, you will earn $150 totally and initial deposit included. That is to say, your net profit will be $50.
Promotional Rewards
Referral Bonus
Existing clients can earn referral bonus by introducing new clients. Vertextrades.com pays 10% referral bonus if the person whom you have referred makes a deposit. Referral bonus is paid instantly. Even the accounts that are not having active deposit are eligible to get referral bonus. The referral bonus will be credited directly to the E-wallet upon the completion of the registration and investment process of the members present down the line.
Binary Matching Bonus
Binary matching bonus will be credited only to the accounts with active deposits. Binary matching income is calculated every 24 hours. Please refer the binary chart for different binary matching slabs.
In binary plan, the new clients are placed below the introducer (referrer) to the left or right side (left or right sub-tree). The tree of a Binary Network Plan will have two legs-left and right; but if a member recruits more than two, then the additional member will be added to the next member down-line. This concept allows the additional member to be shared with down-line member (power leg) and the one who recruited them. This is referred to as spillover. With respect to profit leg, there won’t be a spillover as the profit leg will be expanded with individually sponsored downlines. The binary plan is mostly quantity oriented and not based on the levels.
If you register through my personal link, then 10% of your deposit amount will be transferred back to your personal wallet. So don’t forget to submit your RCB request from top menu section on my website, I will transfer the money to you once admin processes my withdrawal request.
Payment Options
Vertextrades.com accepts PerfectMoney, Payeer, Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, BitcoinCash. Please remember that Bitcoin Payment takes 6 Confirmation in Blockchain. After Bitcoin deposit, it might take anywhere from 1 minute to 3 hours for the funds to be credited in your Vertex Trades account.
Withdrawal Type
The withdrawal processing time after withdrawal request is 48 hours, and the minimum withdrawal amount is 10 USD. Vertextrades.com charges a total of 10% withdrawal fee while transferring the funds from Vertex Trades E- wallet to your e-currency account. However, no fee is charged for internal transfer, i.e., transfer of funds from one Vertex Trades Account Balance to another Vertex Trades Account Balance, so you can use the internal transfer instead of withdrawal function to save the 10% fee. But remember that only use this function with your trusted friends to keep your money safe.
Whois Information
Domain Registration: 2020/01/23–2023/01/23
IP Address: 192.124.249.20–1,541 other sites hosted on this server
IP Location: California — Menifee — Sucuri
ASN: AS30148 SUCURI-SEC, US (registered Feb 13, 2015)
Summary
Vertextrades.com runs its website on an original template, and it now supportes 20 languages. Like most projects, admin also registered a UK company called “VERTEX TRADES LTD”, and you can check its certificate clicking here. From its investment plan, we can know that its profit is not too high, but from its promotional rewards, we can see profitable rewards for promoters. From the picture below, we can see that there is only 8 monitors although it has already operated for 92 days, maybe admin has his own promotional methods.
If you have more questions, you can contact admin through its online chat box or the contact info I wrote below.
Contact Info
https://www.facebook.com/vertextrades
https://twitter.com/Vertextrades
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmMJMXI4lduhYFf6jDJtJ_w
https://t.me/vertextrades
[email protected]
Register: https://vertextrades.com/registeVT44231665/right
From: https://www.hyiper.net/blog/183.html
submitted by vipinvestor1988 to u/vipinvestor1988 [link] [comments]

ForexBit Review

Overview:

The name of this broker ForexBit suggests that the broker deals with the exchange of Forex, Cryptos and provides Contracts-for-Difference. The broker does not mention any account types on its website but shows some investment plans. The plans offered show growth in investments on an hourly basis. The website looks attractive but also seems misguiding. This ForexBit review will shed light on the characteristics and offerings of this broker. Don’t forget to follow this review completely for the sake of your investments.

About ForexBit:

The broker ForexBit offers trade-in FX and binary options. The assets provided by them are very broad. The assets consist of cryptos, indexes, lots of commodities, shares, bonds, and futures. The crypto-coin portfolio of this broker is also very wide and contains all major cryptos like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Litecoin, Dash, and minor ones like IOTA, ZCash, Ada, NEO, Bitcoin Cash, Stellar Lumens, and several others. The official website claims that potential customers of ForexBit are provided with MetaTrader5 trading platform.
The domain of this broker does not furnish information about its owner or manager. But interestingly it provides a company number on the top side of the website. When clicked on it, it redirects to a pdf file that mentions the owner's name and other details. The name of the owner turns out to be Donald Brian and a UK based address. Not surprisingly enough, such documentation and information must be treated as scam and misleading. No genuine broker has such a witty information system. Furthermore, the Financial Conduct Authority in the UK has blacklisted this shady broker on its website. So, it is clear that the broker ForexBit is unlicensed and unregulated. And its potential clients are prone to scam and their funds are not in the safe hands.
The initial investment required starts from $20 to $2500 according to the plans. The level 1 plan offers a 10% growth in 8 hours with a referral of 5%. The level 2 plan offers a 15% growth in 8 hours with a referral of 5%. The level 3 plan offers a 30% growth in 7 hours with a referral of 7%. And the advance plan offers a 55% growth in investment in just 4 hours with a referral of 8%. But the question of how ForexBit will achieve such high profit in such a less time is unanswered.

Is ForexBit scam or legit?

The answer to this question is straight forward, the broker ForexBit is a scam. The information provided on the website does not fulfill any trading criteria. It only asks for the investments. Furthermore, the great strategy for gaining such a huge profit in very less time is also not mentioned anywhere. The provided information on its owner is as shady as it gets. The referral system present makes it clear that the broker is not genuine and trying to make money merely by trader's investments and their referrals. Stay away from this cryptocurrency scam.
submitted by fraudbrokers to u/fraudbrokers [link] [comments]

Freestanding in Prague

Freestanding in Prague

The C++ standards committee met in Prague, Czech Republic between Feb 10 and Feb 15. The standard is wording complete, and the only thing between here and getting it published is ISO process. As is typical for me at these meetings, I spent a lot of time doing freestanding things, Library Incubator (LEWGI) things, and minuting along the way (15-ish sessions/papers!).

Freestanding

I had three freestanding papers coming into this meeting:
The first two papers are pieces of my former "P0829: Freestanding Proposal" paper, and had been seen by the Feature Test study group in Belfast. During this meeting, I got to run them by the Library Incubator for some design feedback. The papers were received well, though some potential danger points still exist. Library Evolution can look at the papers as soon as they have time.
P2013 is the first smaller piece taken out of "P1105: Leaving no room for a lower-level language: A C++ Subset". Exceptions are probably the most important thing in P1105, but there's so much activity going on in this area that it is hard for me to make good recommendations. The next highest priority was new and delete, hence P2013 being born. I also felt that P2013 was a good test paper to see if the committee was willing to make any language based change for freestanding.
I had presented P2013 in a prior Low Latency / SG14 telecon, and received unanimous approval (no neutral, no against votes). I was able to present it in the Evolution Incubator, and received no against votes. Then, in a surprisingly quick turnaround, I was able to present to Evolution, and again received no against votes. So now I just need to come up with wording that accomplishes my goals, without breaking constant evaluated new.

Errors and ABI

On Monday, we held a join session between Evolution and Library Evolution to talk about one of the C++ boogeymen, ABI. P1836 and P2028 have good background reading if you are not familiar with the topic. The usual arguments were raised, including that we are losing out on performance by preserving ABI, and that breaking ABI would mean abandoning some software that cannot be rebuilt today. We took some polls, and I fear that each person will interpret the polls differently. The way I interpreted the polls is that we won't do a "big" ABI break anytime soon, but we will be more willing to consider compiler heroics in order to do ABI breaks in the library.
One ABI area that is frequently overlooked is the situation that I am in. I can rebuild all of my source code, but even despite that I still care about ABI because I don't ship all of it together. I build a library with a plugin architecture, and breaking ABI would mean updating all the plugins on customer systems simultaneously... which is no easy task. I also ship binaries on Linux systems. We would prefer to be able to use new C++ features, despite targeting the various "LTS" distributions. ABI stability is a big part of that. I am hoping to make another post to cpp with my thoughts in the next few months, tentatively titled "ABI Breaks: Not just about rebuilding".
On Tuesday, LEWG discussed "P1656: 'Throws: Nothing' should be noexcept". This is a substantial change to the policy laid out in N3279, authored by Alisdair Meredith. That's why it is informally called the "Lakos" rule. We discussed the trade-offs involved, including how