2011 is all but over. There are many things to thank God for. There were also many things that made me angry and upset. I have also come to realize the pace at which change can take place in the course of a year. Still, I look forward to 2012. I enter my second cycle of life. I live with a continued expectation of blessing, favour and grace.

This year, I added Myanmar and Japan to my list of places visited. We saw first-hand, up-close, Myanmese worship; while I had always been aware of the resoluteness and dedication of the Japanese Christians who make up less than 1% of their population.

I hear angels singing praises I see men from every nation bowing down before the throne. Like the sound of many waters, like a rushing wind around us, multitudes join the song. And as a symphony of praise rises tears are wiped away from eyes as men from every tongue and tribe all sing: "Holy, holy God Almighty who was who is and is to come. All the angels are crying Holy to the Lamb who sits upon the throne. Holy, holy God Almighty who was who is and is to come. All creation is bringing glory to the lamb who sits upon the throne."

I thank God for the last YP Sunday. It was truly a miracle. The number of people who thanked me and offered words of compliments and encouragement was not just beyond what I had expected. I didn't even expect any in the first place. I just wanted to do my bit and get on with the day's program. Wasn't everybody already hungry for lunch? And so I didn't even know what to say in reply at first.

You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.

There is a very common phrase that goes "love the giver, not the gift". It is usually applied by Christians explaining their relationship to God. It's not about His blessings they say, it is about Him. But is it really?

We sort of tripped upon this issue again when discussing the concept of tithing. From Malachi 310-12:
¹⁰ Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. ¹¹ I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop their fruit before it is ripe,” says the LORD Almighty. ¹² “Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land,” says the LORD Almighty.

We're not really supposed to test the Lord, unless of course, he allows us to do so as in this case. And His promises are staggering: Not enough room for storage, fortress-like security against evil and a good reputation amongst others.

Which leads to the question: do you tithe to receive these blessings, or do you tithe simply because God invites you to do so? The "Christian" answer would say that we tithe because we love God. At most, we tithe to "test" Him, since He legitimately allows us to do so. To say we tithe to receive these blessings carries the impression that we are materialistic wealth and health-chasers.

However, I would say that when you love God, you can have confident expectation of His blessings. In other words, God and blessings cannot be separated. Sure, we love God above all else and we want to get to know Him more each day. And one way of knowing Him is through the blessings that he floods us with each day. I think we are robbing ourselves trying to be self-righteous by saying that "I love God unconditionally" full-stop. It sounds humble and zen and cool and calm to say that nothing else matters. But I do think that as Christians, we can have the right to claim the promises of God because blessings are His nature.

So why do I tithe? Because I love God AND I know that He will honour what He promises in His Word. So yes, it is important to put the giver before the gift. But it is also important to remember that the gift is very much part of the giver. Try telling a pre-believer why He should believe in Jesus. You cant convince Him unless you tell him that believing in Jesus brings other promises and blessings: eternal life, life abundant, security (good shepherd), living water, etc. So the giver and the gift are hyphenated together into a single entity. They are not to be separated. Jehovah-Jireh is not two separate words. It is not "the God who provides", which implies that perhaps maybe there are times where he might not provide. No, Jehovah-Jireh means Jehovah who is my Jireh. God who is my Provider. The provision is in Him. When I have God by my side, I have the Provision because that is what He is.

I think many Christians, even the well-meaning ones, try to downplay the blessings of God. Love God first! they say. And they are absolutely right. But if you're going to love God, then you're also going to look forward to the blessings that come with loving Him. We don't love Him to earn His favour, and that hopefully, He may sprinkle some blessing here and there. As the song says "I will worship you for who you are". The passage in Malachi has already established that He is a pretty generous God hasn't it? Shall we not worship Him for that is what He is like?

The last verse of my favourite Psalm says "Surely your goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life". I read somewhere "follow me" is actually a rather mild translation of the original text. A more accurate phrase would be "hunt me down relentlessly". And just as how the US spared no expense in doing the same to Osama (and hence placing the US Treasury in debt, a problem God will never face), how much more would God do the same for us?

The study of political science and the Salvation Army are actually remarkably similar. It has been gnawing at my mind ever since I started on my degree, but as usual, it had never left my brain until now. In NUS, the political science department divides its modules into Political Theory, International Relations, Comparative Politics and Public Administration. You are not required to specialize in any field, so long you take at least one module from each category.

When these four sub-fields are superimposed on the Army, similarities can be found, though some are stronger than others.

Take International Relations. Most PS undergraduates love IR for a variety of reasons, one of which is the desire to serve in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And as we have all been told, Singapore's external relations are of paramount importance. And while we are able to punch above our weight, the reality of our physical size means there is still only so much we can do. So the way Christianity relates to the other religions is like international relations, whereby each religion is akin to a continent, say for example, Europe. The Army is numerically, a small denomination of the Christian church, but we retain our independent identity and present that identity as a face of Christianity to the rest of the religious world. Its like being a tiny country in Europe, say Luxembourg. You're not going to hear Luxembourg very much in the news, and nobody goes to war with tiny Luxembourg. But while they are an European nation in every way, they have their own flag, capital, laws and so on. You might think the culture of Luxembourg is similar to France or Germany, but they are not a province or district of either. So it is with the Army. We are a Christian church in every way. We share similarities with the Methodists, the Anglicans and maybe even some Christian cults! But we have certain attributes that we use to our advantage when relating to non-Christian entities. For instance, the strong social work allows the Army a greater leverage in some countries where churches are viewed with suspicion. The fact that our churches are known as "corps" rather than "church" could be a reason why some of them have been spared the destruction and torching whenever religious violence break out.

Political Theory is the discussion of democracy, communism and the various forms of power and citizens' rights and so on. It is like the doctrines if you will, of political science. All political studies have their roots in the thoughts and theories of political thinkers. Though laborious to plough through and seemingly rather unimpressive today, back then, they were ground-breaking work. Whatever the case, such theories are what drive countries and leaders today. The Americans pride themselves as the bastion of democracy. Countries ruled by religious leaders are theocracies. The party in power in China proudly calls itself Communist. And even though Marx is considered the father of communism, various branches have emerged such as Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism. As for democracy variants, the list is even longer. Scholars still have not come to a conclusive definition of democracy, and there are modules and books about it. Singapore's democracy is generally regarded as top-down, or authoritarian. Thailand's democracy involves the military. Myanmar's military has no time for democracy. Christian denominations are waning as more independent churches grow. That is a fact. But whatever the case, each church or denomination still has a set of doctrines and principles that guide its focus and emphasis. In the Army, amongst the newer generation particularly, our doctrines have become a cumbersome set of statements relegated to the back of the songbook. It appears to have lost its relevance. Obviously, God provides the spiritual direction and not the doctrines. The doctrines do not replace the Bible. So what then, is the use of the doctrines? For that matter, can we still say that the doctrines are the cornerstones of the Army's spiritual life? Think for example, where does our cell group material come from? How many people actually use Words of Life? The songs that we sing, are they inspired from outside or within? Are the officers providing spiritual leadership, or are our soldiers finding spiritual feed from elsewhere? I am not saying to be closed or open is right or wrong. Everybody knows North Korea is as different from South Korea as night is from day. Opening up brings benefits (just ask Samsung and Hyundai!), but how much is too much? Can a country remain Communist without following every single word in Marx's Manifesto? Do we move forward following the present trends (that are increasingly shaped by non-denominational churches)? Or do we cling stubbornly to songs and doctrines that may be irrelevant in today's day and age? Can we remain proud of our heritage and identity? Or must we be forced to go "shopping around" to see what everybody has and then adopt for ourselves? And these are just regarding the doctrines. What about the whole idea of soldiership and the uniform?

Comparative Politics is actually my favourite area of study. Amongst other things, it looks at the governments and political systems of individual countries and regions. It is the soft-ware of politics, the study of what goes on behind the scenes. It is often skipped over by politicians who want to the grab the limelight in the international stage. A good example would be trying to convert to the world into democracies. Comparativists on the other hand would tell you the background and history and why it would not work in certain places. They have the "I told you so" look on their faces because they dig deep into backgrounds, understanding their importance to the present. And so it is the same of the Army around the world. Each territory and command have their differences. A corps officer in Singapore would be different from one in the US or in Africa. Some territories are more "traditional", others are more "modern" in the way they do things. Some have the advantage of being blessed with more resources that allow them a better administrative system and more programmes. Others get by with minimal administration and ad-hoc programmes. I personally find it interesting how the Army is different across the world. Yes, all our pastors are called corps officers; soldiers' epaulettes are blue while officers' are red. But not every country has the double "S" on their uniforms. Like in Germany, where the Schutzstaffel, or "SS" were Hitler's personal army that carried out the holocaust. Walking around today with those letters would get you arrested. Being a history buff, the history of Army development is also of interest. We think of Korea's painful experience during the Korean War, when all trace of the Army north of the DMZ vanished, as did a number of officers and soldiers in the South. The Japanese too were going strong until World War II, and though they are self-sustaining today, they are numerically small. We marvel at how fast the Army spread in the US, which practically supports the financial health of the worldwide Army today on its own. The Army in the US is one of the most admired organizations in America. True to its immigrant roots, there are Chinese, Korean and Japanese (prior to WWII) corps, and even a Laotian corps! As a Protestant church, the Army's strength in also reflected in Europe depending on whether the country leans towards Protestantism or Catholicism. Italy, Portugal, and Spain are of Command status. The France and Belgium Territory is not much bigger. Austria is part of the Switzerland territory. The bigger European territories, apart from the UK, are in the north: Sweden, Norway, Netherlands. Examples could go on, and it just serves to highlight the diversity of the Army that is shaped by history, governments, current events, culture and even natural disasters. The Army as a diverse movement around the world is something we should appreciate. There are few organizations as closely inter-linked across borders as we are. While in Sweden, I was fortunate to meet several Japanese soldiers, some of whom are now friends on Facebook. And when the tsunami struck, the first news I received of the Army's work in Japan was not via an IHQ press release, but from their status updates.

The last field, Public Administration, bears resemblance not so much in content but in analogy. PA seeks to study the "government" part of government and politics. Yes politicians are on paper, at the top of the food chain. But working under them are the civil servants, and it is well known that those of senior rank wield a large degree of power themselves. But to the public eye, the minister (as an elected appointee) is in charge. The relationship between politicians and civil servants can range from tense to interesting to harmonious to suspicious. Who is in charge of say, the Education ministry? The minister for education, or the director-general who was once a teacher and principal himself? We don't elect officers in the Army (the voting results might be embarrassing for some officers!) but the similar relationship is there. In an organization that is supposed to led by spiritually-ordained officers, how much influence can non-ordained soldiers and employees have? Have we let the latter group take control of too many functions to the extent that officership is no longer a desired or needed option? This has been a common reason; that many soldiers are convinced that officership does not match their spiritual giftings. It seems that officers are jack of all trades. There is discomfort about that, and the ambiguity that surrounds each round of appointment changes does little to ease their worries. Soldiers and employees serve under officers, but officers, like ministers, will move from time to time. An officer may be officially in charge, but he might not be the expert, just like how the minister for defence would probably be less knowledgeable about the latest weaponry than his generals. It thus takes a very high level of humility from soldiers and employees to serve under an appointed officer. Particularly when that appointment is made from far away; eg: TC and CS. Both of these senior officers are ordained and experienced in pastoral work. But what about matters regarding finance, legal and IT? As a "Christian civil servant", it can be tough having to answer to an officer who has limited knowledge. And even amongst the lower-ranking officers, there is sometimes tension between them and employees when wanting to get things done. Similar to politics, just because you are a backbencher MP does not mean you are a miracle worker who can move mountains in the form of the relevant ministries and stat boards. The issue of whether non-Salvationist employees share the same vision as officers and soldiers is the first big hot potato. The second is between officers and soldiers. Who is supposed to do what, and is it healthy in the long-run if some areas of the church has almost zero officers' input?

Political Science, like most other social sciences often brings up very difficult questions. Particularly in this post-modern era where everything can be anything. It is not about finger-pointing. It is just to stir the pot. Some analogies have relevance, others are limited. It doesn't matter. This post was just something to think about. The social sciences may not be built around equations, but there is still a large amount of logic involved. We are as wishy-washy as some people think. How well you do step 1 will have consequences on what options you have for step 2. However, having said all that, Christians can rely on something that the social sciences cannot; and that is prayer.

I don't like loud noises and loud music. That by implication means I don't see the attractiveness of clubbing and other types of nightlife I am barely aware of. Yes I can almost hear the "what!? you're a 12-year AC boy.. how can you not know??" But I really don't. I know Christian worship concerts are the in-thing now. Thousands of young people in high energy worship, jumping up and down is I suppose relevant to gen Y. The lights, the smoke and the rush to the mosh pit in front, but who am I to pass judgement on their worship anyway? But I prefer not to squeeze in crowded areas. I sometimes wonder if I am weird; that I am out of touch with all this. Am I subconsciously holding back or is it just who I am?

I will always thank National Geographic for instilling this connection I have with nature and how I feel so close to God as I flip through pictures of scenery I will probably never see. I have not jumped on the recent DSLR camera bandwagon, so that rules me out of a potential job as Nat Geo photographer. But still, when I think of how this is all God's creation, how everything is supposed to work in harmony, the term "reverent awe" comes to mind. How your breath is just taken away. There is not a river or a mountain or waterfall or valley that is not supposed to be there. I think many Singaporeans can't grasp how big the world is. They embarrass themselves in front of foreigners by thinking that "country", "city" and "state" all mean the same thing.

I've always said I like traveling, but I never had a concrete reason why. I'm not an adventurous person. I can't learn new languages well. I can get easily flustered in big crowds. But now, in addition to all the other reasons that are for traveling, I can say that getting out of our tiny red dot is a subtle reminder of God's greatness reflected in the sheer physical size of our planet earth. The fact that we have to fly for hours. All that passes beneath and above and around us as the plane flies is God's creation. If even man can be so awed by the heights of mountains and the vastness of the seas, how much more are we in awe of a God to whom mountains bow down and the seas will roar?

Whenever America becomes the target of fury from across the world, we see protests outside their embassies and McDonalds outlets get smashed by mobs furious against perceived American imperialism. But when it comes to Disney... it doesn't happen. I think Mickey Mouse is the best ambassador America has ever produced. There is just something about Disney's soft power that is almost magical (no Disney cliche pun intended there). It brings a smile on your face and lifts your hopes up "when you wish upon a star". Having just returned from Hong Kong Disneyland, this is its dedication declaration:

"Hong Kong Disneyland is dedicated to the young and the young at heart - with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration, and an enduring symbol of the cooperation, friendship and understanding between the people of Hong Kong and the United States of America."

There you have it. The words of the Disney CEO then. Disney is not an arm of the American government. It is an entertainment corporation that has become a useful tool for American soft power. Hard power is the usual form of power we see. The usual analogy is "carrots or sticks". But soft power is different. It just seeks to attract, and the more people are attracted to it, the more power it wields. And in the global game of diplomacy, this non-provocative power can be very powerful indeed. Disney diplomacy to spread the message of peace and goodwill to all. (Sounds almost like a religion?)

According to Wikipedia, the years 1989 to 1999 are the Disney Renaissance: Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan.

Again, music is so important to Disney. Look at the list of films above and already some tunes are coming to mind. In respective order: Part of your World, Beauty and the Beast, A Whole New World, Circle of Life/Can You Feel the Love Tonight, Colours of the Wind, Out There, Go the Distance, Reflections, You'll Be in my Heart.

I'd say that a very, very big part of Disney's success can be attributed to its music soundtracks. It is neither heavy metal nor classical but a totally unique genre of its own. And unlike other theme parks, everywhere you walk around Disneyland, there is a familiar Disney tune being played over the public speakers. And you have Disney characters walking around to take photos with. There is the obligatory fairytale castle and Main Street. The live theater performances were good, although I think the standard of acting in the original Disneyland in California is still the best. Acting aside, it still amazes me how the music arrangers are able to string together so many Disney classics into one piece to accompany the acting.

That strikes a chord with the music side of me. Queuing up, big crowds and expensive tickets? Not thanks, not for me. That's how soft power works. The ability to attract and influence and integrate what it offers. Disney is more than a mouse and his pals. Disney as a brand is powerful.

So now that the GE is all over, it is time for me to make some noise! It was slightly bemusing how so many people thought I should be some sort of expert because I study political science. Well, yes and no. I could explain the voting system, but like everybody else, I wouldn't know how much things like HDB prices and gay agendas would affect the ruling party. Pol Science is more than just Singapore; there are lots of other countries and international organizations to concern ourselves with.

The loss of George Yeo is a big blow to Singapore no doubt. Our neighbours are not happy when MM says certain "hard truths", or when Temasek tries to buy over Shin Corp. But with our Foreign Minister, all is fine. They even look up to him, and credit him for pushing ASEAN hard as a credible regional entity. As a small, trading nation, our foreign relations are crucial. It requires more than just a minister to sit at the apex of the organizational structure and watch the career civil servants do all the work. He has to do the hard work himself too, like respectfully engaging other foreign diplomats even if they are downright dimwitted, gamely eating strange food he might not like, attending conferences that don't lead to anywhere and so on. It is important but hard work, the pool of capable candidates to fill such large shoes is small but more opposition voices are apparently of greater necessity.

And so this is how it really came down to local-level concerns versus national level concerns. Some people have said that the GRC system is solely to blame for the loss of a two ministers and a permanent secretary. If there was no such system, then the three of them would still be in parliament. I'm not so sure. Assuming Singapore was divided into 87 single member constituencies. Each MP, including the ministers have to fight their own fight. The likely scenario then would be that the Ministers would retain their seats, as would the influential Opposition leaders. The majority of the remaining seats would most likely go to PAP candidates since they are, at this point in time, the largest and most structured party. However, just like how winning a GRC would be a "watershed", eventually, the Opposition would turn their eyes to a Minister-held constituency as a big gain for the Opposition. And so the Minister, who is supposed to look after national level concerns, has to spend more time now fighting at the local level. Apparently for the sake of democracy. Apparently for the sake of checks and balances.

The problem really is the voting and political system that Singapore uses which is (surprise surprise!) an inheritance from the British. It cannot be emphasized enough that voting system and political system are two different things.

First, voting systems. In Pol Science terms, Singapore, like Britain, uses the First Past the Post system (FPTP). Whoever gets the most wins; the margin of victory is irrelevant. This is like the crucial first step that all political commentator wannabes must understand. I've read forum postings by people moaning about how 60% of the votes can translate into 81 out of 87 seats and I feel like knocking their heads! If 75 marks is what you need to get an A1, then it doesn't matter whether you get 75 or full marks for everything; in the eyes of MOE, you are a six-pointer. Or if you need 9 min 45 secs for your 2.4km timing to get a Gold. You ran it in 8 mins last year but took 9 mins 30 secs this year. Terrible drop in fitness, but records-wise, you are Gold standard still. Not surprising then, that FPTP favours bigger political parties since they have just enough to cross the line and their gains are exaggerated. For the losing party, even if you had 49.99% of the vote, you lost and nothing for you - the winner takes it all. The alternative to FPTP is the Proportional Representation. As its name implies, you receive what you earned. 60% of the vote? Then 60% of the seats for you. Small parties love this system and why not? Even 1 or 2% of the vote will be rewarded with a couple of seats. If it was FPTP, sorry, but you lose your deposit!

But perhaps what is more relevant to the recent GE is the political system. In particular, the relationship between the legislature and the executive. In Singapore and the UK, every minister is first and foremost an MP. MPs from both ruling and opposition parties form the legislature. The job of the legislature is to represent the voices of the people. From amongst the MPs, the Prime Minister (who is also an MP himself), selects his ministers, and together, the ministers form the executive in addition to their roles as MPs in the legislature. In terms of policy, policies are usually initiated by the executive, debated by the legislature, approved by the legislature and then executed by the executive. That is why calls for George Yeo to continue as Foreign Minister somehow cannot be allowed. The idea is that you have to have the approval of the citizens at the ground level first (via winning a seat in the legislature) before you can be considered part of the executive. It makes sense, but as mentioned earlier, it blurs local level issues with national level issues.

Take George Yeo's American counterpart, Hillary Clinton. She doesn't have to worry about lack of car park space in Alabama or rising costs in Alaska or the opposition wanting to be a co-driver in Arizona. She was appointed to be America's Secretary of State (the equivalent of FM) and that is her job, period. This is because the US adopts a different system to us. It emphasizes the separation of legislature and executive. President Obama is the head of the executive and he appoints Clinton and the other members of the executive. Winning his own presidential election gives him the right to do so and that is their full time jobs. It is not their jobs to double-hat as a legislator. The were chosen based on their expertise. The legislature on the other hand, is the voice of the people. They are the MP-equivalents. They have to go around and shake hands and attend functions and so on. The legislature is sub-divided into the Senate and the House of Representatives. Historically, this was to resolve the big state vs small state dilemma. Its not quite GRC vs SMC, but the Senate gives all the states both big and small 2 senate seats each. Equal treatment for all = 100 senators in total from the 50 states. The House on the other hand, consists of 435 seats as allowed in the much revered American Constitution (unlike the Singapore one, which nobody has really read or seen), and each state is guaranteed at least 1 seat. So after subtracting the 50 guaranteed seats, that leaves 385 seats to be distributed to the states according to the size of population.

Those who are sharp would immediately see that "according to the size of population" sounds very much like the GRC explanation we get doesn't it? And just in case you think the US isn't above redrawing electoral districts, think again. Their Census Bureau does a census every ten years (as required by their Constitution - see how much they love it?). Those who gain populations in proportion to the total population will gain seats and vice versa - so long as the total number stays at 435. For example, in the next election in 2012, Texas and Florida will be among those that will gain, while New York and New Jersey will be among those that will lose. Although it claims to be bipartisan, the political parties don't always agree. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Just for the sake of indulging in some "Follow America - the bastion of democracy" dreaming, I have been thinking about this: Singapore has an executive that is separate from the legislature (consisting of Senate and House), so competent Foreign Ministers can serve and the Housing Minister is, well, chosen for his competence. To avoid confusion, GRCs, SMCs, Doctor's MCs (oops! just joking!) are abolished. The boundaries of all constituencies are instead fixed but the number of seats in the House per constituency can change based on population. The committee that decides the change are the overseas Singaporeans, since their votes have historically never tipped the balance in anybody's favour and so they are deemed neutral enough. The Pulau Ubin and Marina Bay constituencies are then in a dilemma because they dont have enough people to fill the single House seat and two senate seats. The Lim Chu Kang constituency had the same problem, but it was resolved when two generals who were previously contesting other areas volunteered to shift house back to their beloved barracks in order to stand for election there. Otherwise, there were fears that Lim Chu Kang might not exist 100 years from now. Meanwhile, all is quiet in the West with little opposition activity, but in the East, things are heating up. In Aljunied, the residents, fearful of the decreasing values of their homes, start moving out in droves to Marine Parade constituency. So Aljunied gets reduced from an "A" (as in best) team to A (as in one) single seat in the House, which means Low TK and Sylvia have to scissors, paper, stone "best of five". The winner gets the seat, the loser gets to slap the winner from time to time. In neighbouring Marine Parade, SM looks on at his enlarged constituency, beaming like a proud grandfather as pretty girls armed with branded bags fight it out for the ten new seats up for grabs. But don't worry, veterans Tin PL and Nicole are not involved - they have cordially agreed to take one senate seat each. The same sort of civility is witnessed in Hougang where both the ruling party and opposition candidates have cordially agreed to a similar arrangement. Despite the noise going on from upgrading works across the road at a different constituency, the deal was struck in a run-down coffee shop and the news greeted with cheers in Teochew by the residents. No such deal could be reached in Potong Pasir because the candidates were too busy trying to suppress a "spoil your vote" movement that had suddenly sprung up. Husband and wife teams are not allowed to take the two senate seats together, but there appeared to be some confusion over homosexual couples, a point mercilessly attacked by some activists. After the elections to the legislature are over, there is still no place for the popular Chiam ST and out of public sympathy (and a sneak attempt to boost his ratings), the president appoints him to his executive branch as Minister for Veteran Affairs, as well as to lead a task force in researching how many O Levels are enough to succeed in life. The Mentor Minister is given a new portfolio - to counsel and forgive those who wish to repent and regret. But after the dust settles, we have a First World Parliament! It is the third-last step to be First World Everything (Giving up seats to those who need it more and Speaking Proper English are the last steps). Because there is a separate Executive, as well as the Senate and the House, it is bigger in size than the previous third world parliament. More MP allowances have to be paid out, but its okay, because we have lots of small change in the reserves.