Singaporeans are stupid. Says Li Ao

This is what the fame Li Ao of Taiwan, or of China, depending on which side of the bed he woke up from said. And the report in the Straits Times also said that the law abiding Singaporeans have always been seen as gullible in Greater China. Now, how come Singaporeans got this kind of image? Let me think seriously about this. Li Ao also said so. He recommends all Singaporeans to think also. Now he is asking too much, asking Singaporeans to think. Li Ao said, 'If even a clever man like Li Ao has this impression - and he has no enemies in Singapore - think : Why doe he have this impression?' For those Singaporeans who find thinking a tedious process, take a break. I will try to think a little. For once, Singaporeans think or do not think, that the money in their CPF account is their money. And the Government rightly believe so and so decided to take good care of the money for the stupid Singaporeans. Ah, good reason. Another reason, Singaporeans sincerely believe that all the half baked foreigners are talents or more talented than them. And this is a fact. Oh my God. But how did the Chinese know this? Obviously they did not know what is happening inside Singapore. They must have dealings with Singaporeans to know that the gullible Singaporeans are all law abiding even in China when no one obeys the law, or very few do. They must have met many law abiding Singaporeans in Suzhou. But Li Ao is in Taiwan. How could he have such an impression that Singaporeans are stupid? Now what did Singaporeans do in Taiwan? Now Singaporeans, before you behave stupidly again, please huh, this is meant to be a joke. Seriously. Now I must emphasise this again to make sure Singaporeans get the message, that this is really a joke.

democracy = people crazy

Thailand has seen the worst of democracy with the dethronement of Thaksin. It is mob rule, peoplecracy, when a small group of activists pushed their way against the people who voted for Thaksin to be their PM. Is this democracy? It is tyranny of a minority. If Thaksin in Singapore, he would have the law on his side. Technically and legally he was within the law. Here is a case where the law may be right. But if the people were against it, the law can be set aside.

ge round 26: qualilty of pap candidates

I couldn't believe when I heard the comments over TV about the quality of PAP candidates. Some even remarked whether they can do the job. My view is very simple. These are the best brains in their professions. They are people who have proven that they can work and can be successful. Their credentials are impeccable. Only reservation, which no one is wiser, is whether among them is another NKF potential. Other than a personal flaw that may surface over time, these are people that can and will do very well in their careers. Lets not doubt their abilities and intelligence. The only problem with such excellent profesionals coming into politics is the system of manpower management and allocation in a talent deprived nation. By our size, we have very limited talents in all fields. I find it a very bad idea to put these brilliant men and women into politics at a time when they are just peaking in their chosen fields. Allow me to elaborate. The general career pattern of a professional singaporean will conform to this pattern. At 25 to 35 years, a learning and skill acquisition phase where they try to establish themselves in their work. 35 to 45, established and accepted as a bright star or a potential bright star. 45 to 55, achievements and recognised as a leader in their respective fields. 55 to 70, assume leadership in society, in politics, business, trade or community. This last group is what I would think is the ideal final phase for a talented individual before he faded away. What the PAP system is doing is actually upsetting the naturally development of people and their career development. Pulling people in the 35 to 45 age group into politics is a bad move. First, they are just reaching the peak of their career but not really there. And uprooting them into politics will deprive them from achieving greatness in their profession. The profession will also be deprived of a rare talent and suffers as well. And because they were nearly there, they could not acquire all the dues, monetary and reputation, which are due to them. They will enter politics hungry, or fairly hungry, in money terms and in personal achievements in their trades. Yes they can gain fame and money in politics too. But that should not be their motivation. Politics is to serve, to help chart the nation, and at times can be very demanding and requires self sacrifices in many areas. These brilliant young people are expected to sacrifice their chosen professional career, family, and money. And if they come into politics thinking that money can be compensated, then it is bad for them and for the people. If they take the natural path, develop and acquire fame and achievements and earn all the money they deserved from 35 to 55, and then having done what they have done as a successful and recognised leaders in their fields, they can then come into politics, wiser, stable, secure and rich in their bank accounts and assets, they could be great leaders without craving for fame and money. And the nation will benefit from their professional contributions at their best. Now coming into politics when they are half way there, and have to quit politics probably in their late fifties, they ended up neither here nor there. This is a sheer waste of talent and our precious human resource. This, in my view, is a system fault. The system is upsetting the apple cart. I would agree that not all should follow a standard pattern of progression in their life/career. But to institutionalise or systemise this is not very good in the long run. When these good men are disrupted and asked to give way to new blood when they are in their fifties, they will be hanging in midair, neither here nor there. Ok, they can line up as directors of companies and use their contacts as leverage to earn director fees. This is hardly an option that will benefit from their real talents. A rather parasitic relationship.

a japanese plea

Kazuo Ogoura, a retired Japanese diplomat, wrote a passionate plea in the Straits Times on why China must support Japan's quest for a seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. In his four reasons, he said that it is in the interest of China to support Japan's entry. Not only that his reasons were wishy washy and unconvincing. Not only that the historical records of Japanese militarism was nothing but savagery that it is difficult for China to support Japan, the Japanese could not understand why China will not give them an inch to get into the UNSC. And it is not even the shrine visiting that makes the Chinese to look at Japan with disfavour. It is the deliberate military alliance with the Americans that puts Japan as the most dangerous country to China's security interest. How could China bring a wolf into the UNSC when the wolf has chosen to stay on the side of a bigger bad wolf and would together attack China if needed to? Japan has chosen to be China's number One enemy by choice. It sided with the Americans in practically every issue against China. It also signed a military pact with the Americans to protect Taiwan, an outrageous act that China is tolerating for the moment but will one day be used to kick the Japanese arse. It is the most blatant hostile act by Japan against China. And Japan wants China to support its entry into the UNSC to collude and attack China or undermine China's interest? Even the Americans have great reservation about the risk of a Japanese presence in the UNSC and refused to support it. Then why would China want to support Japan when Japan's number one military ally refused to support her?

welcome to malaysia

to all our visitors, welcome to malaysia. as we become islamised daily, it is a matter of time before we will become a full islamic state. for the time being, public hugging and kissing are now an offence in malaysia and those indulging in such activities publicly can be jailed for one year. more islamic laws and moral conducts will be introduced in a matter of time and we will keep all our visitors duly informed to prevent them from running foul of our islamic laws. please enjoy our hospitality. inshallah.

ge round 25: follow my rules

Wong Kan Seng has repeated the call to opposition parties to introduce their candidates for public scrutiny, just like what the PAP has been doing. This may not be the official election ruling, but it is the rules that PAP abides by. And oppositions are told to follow. Low Thia Khiang replied by saying, lets show hands. You don't hide the election date, tell us and we all show hands. What else does the PAP wants the opposition to be open? What else does the opposition wants the PAP to be open? Let's all be open. Everybody open cards and play open poker.

cyberspace and cybercitizens

Cyberspace starts with the 3 simple alphabets, www, which means world wide web. A person nagivating through cyberspace, is actually moving in a virtual world, in a different dimension. His address is a virtual address, nothing physical. He is actually a citizen of a virtual world, unconfined or unlimited by physical space. A cyberbeing actually resides no where if he does not state where is his residence. Or he could register his residence in any nooks or corners of the world. Or he could actually create a fictitious country with a fictitious address. Welcome to cyberspace and cyberbeings and cybercitizens. Can any country claim authority over such cybercitizens? Can they really think that they have jurisidiction over cyberbeings if the cyberbeing chooses to reside in virtual space? A blogger or forumer in cyberspace posts or speaks to the world and not to a particular country or remain in a particular country. www connects everyone in cyberworld into one world, no boundaries, no govt, no laws. Why should cybercitizens register with national bodies and subject themselves to the rules and laws of a country when their existence is in a virtual world?

ge round 24: waiting for balaji

It is not a matter of registering or not to register. Singaporeans must not continue to behave like the pavlov's animal. When a bell rings they will behave exactly how they have behaved before. When the govt said register, and all starts running to register without thinking if they need to. Just register for safety. Don't play with the law. And they do not bother to ask whether they need to register. When are Singaporeans going to start to think, to question? I am not trying to be rebellious by not registering. I just want to know if I need to register. The whole blogosphere is asking for a clearer definition of who should register. The govt needs to come forward and make it clear to the people. We have all been talking about transparency, communication, feedback, and this is what is needed now. It is the responsibility of the govt to make the rules clear to the people. They cannot come out with something wishy washy and let the people try to figure out what it means. Every blogger and forumer is waiting for a clarification from Balaji.

round 23:can this blog continue to post during election?

podcasting not allowed.. bloggers can discuss politics, but must register with the media department authority if they persistently promote political view.. now that would cover everything under the sky.. what are political views? it can mean anything, from a mp taking lunch at a food court to how many times a mp goes to the toilet. and do people in kopitiams talking politics also need to register with mda? so much for more freedom of expression.. why are singaporeans not allow to talk about singapore politics? this is our life, our country.. barring foreigners from interferring with our politics maybe acceptable.. but to gag singaporeans on talking politics is unacceptable.. oh, singaporeans have been blamed for being apathetic about politics huh? singaporeans not interested about what is happening in singapore? and when singaporeans talk about singapore's affairs, must register with mda? now who is killing singaporeans interest in our national affairs? is this the way to encourage singaporeans to be interested in how the country is being run? come on, the country belongs to singaporeans and concerned singaporeans must be allowed to discuss what is happening to the country and to comment on things that are unacceptable or wrong.. speak out about issues that concerned them.. or all these calls about speaking out are not meant to be taken seriously? how would it be if there is a clean sweep? or maybe all singaporeans should shut up and forget about what is happening to the country.. is that what liberalisation means? what opening up means? are we progressing? or do we want to head the way myanmar is heading?

new discovery - cpf rulings are rigid!

wow. finally the mps discovered that cpf rulings are too rigid.. and these include prohibition from withdrawing money to pay for a member's last hospitalisation bill.. didn't know that such rulings can exist. we got to thank eng hen for introducing some flexibility to reduce the difficulties faced by cpf members especially those who are terminally ill.. for this group they can withdraw their cpf earlier.. now ain't them lucky.. now there is an excuse for early withdrawal.. when one is limp. for the restrictive cpf regulations to continue for so long without it being addressed in parliament would be a good case for more genuine opposition candidates.. just wondering why the ruling party mps did not raise them or just discover them. maybe with eng hen's willingness to introduce more flexibilities, all the tough rules and regulations in cpf will be a thing of the past.. all it needs is a good minister to change them, or the alternative is for genuine opposition mps to raise them in parliament..

higher toll at the causeway

it is about time malaysia put a stop to singaporeans going over to pump cheap petrol and buying cheap local products, and enjoying cheaper hospitality and services.. for every trip that a singaporean drives in, he will save at least $20.. and if he goes to the maximum, he could save even $50.. and all at the expense of malaysia. now this is not good.. how can singaporeans go over and take advantage of a cheaper ringgit and lower cost in malaysia? malaysia is right to level the difference. malaysia is now pondering on levelling a $20 ringgit for every car that goes into malaysia, including the thais.. that is the wisest thing they have come up with after all these years.. in fact $20 ringgit is too low.. a reasonable and more equitable sum shall be $50 ringgit per car.. and when the new causeway bridge is up, then it should be $100 ringgit per car.. anyway for those singaporeans who have to go over, they have no choice but to go.. so malaysia must be brave enough to charge what is fair to them.. and singaporeans can afford to pay. and they must increase to $50 ringgit now.. then by the time the bridge is ready, they can add another $50 ringgits.. to increase all to $100 ringgit in one go is too much.. learn from singapore, increase a bit every year.. $50 now, next year $60, then $70, and when the bridge is operational, $100. that's the way to go.. why make your goods and services cheaper than singapore for singaporeans to take advantage of? if malaysia did not charge singaporeans more, than it is an unfair situation and malaysia is on the losing end.

asean unhappy with india and china

asean is unhappy with india and china for not interfering or putting pressure on myanmar to take the democratic road and allow more freedom and rights to her people. having failed in all attempts, the next logical thing for asean is to do a regime change.. and since asean is so adamant in interfering with myanmar's domestic affair, it should go all the way.. but asean cannot use the wmd formula to invade myanmar.. the formula has been found unworkable and myanmar definitely has no wmd.. unless of course cultivating and selling opium can be considered wmd. maybe asean should seek the advice from george bush or rice.. they would have better and more ingenious solution to the myanmar problem.. but asean must not forget that interfering in other nation's domestic affairs run counter to asean's principle of non interference and could set a precedence for other big powers to interfer in asean state and even do a regime change.

ge round 22: nkf saga

khaw boon wan is confident that he can defend the nkf saga if the opposition raises it as an issue during the general election.. he said singaporeans are not stupid and know who are the good guys and bad guys and who 'allowed' the all the facts to be exposed, and who saved nkf. when the rally is in full swing, i am sure he will be made to tell the full story of how it started, who brought in durai, who nurtured and supported him, who allowed him to go to the extend unchecked, who praised him and glorified him, and who think he did no wrong. in normal circumstances, after the laying out of facts and all the right things and good things were said, the people can expect to be told to close the case and move on. but in an election, it is not so simple as that.. the people might not be stupid.. the people might be well read.. but the people are people.. and they can choose what they want to believe and who to believe.. they can even choose to believe the sensational.. do i mean that they can believe falsehood? they could.. and they could believe in anything.. a fiery and articulate speaker can change everything. and then they go to vote.. if the people choose to believe white is black or is grey, and they can, the nkf saga can lead to controversial results.. it is easy to turn a bad case into one's favour when one can say, 'it's over, let's move on.' and the critics have no means of reply and could not do anything. in an election rally, the opposition can have their voices and objections heard.. that is a major difference.. so it is not that easy to paint a beautiful picture when both sides can add in their strokes and colours.

ge round 21: one party rule is good

raymond lim told his grassroot leaders that simply having opposition in the govt has no absolute merit in itself.. this is a fair statement.. having an opposition in parliament is not the cure for any govt.. the opposition has to be of substance.. then again, to dismiss the need for an opposition in any govt, democracy or totalitarian state or a dictatorship, is a simple recipe for horror, for the abuse of power.. not that we are having these problems now.. but it will make it so easy to go down the abyss.. for any political system to endure the ravages of time, it has to have in built systems of checks and balances.. the checks and balances must be institutionalised.. and that is what the american system is all about.. the flaws and dangers of absolute power were the preoccupation of the founding fathers of america and they have enshrined in their constitutions that no one, or no one organisation, is to have absolute power. this is wisdom of the ages.. to ignore this and tell people that a one party system is good, is being very shortsighted and dangerous. singapore needs to have oppositions in the parliament.. the judiciary, legislature and the executive arms, and the civil servants must be able to work independently when it needs to.. these must be institutionalised and be a sacred feature of our nation.. if we are to accept that just because at the moment we have a fairly decent govt and leadership, then this model of a one party govt is good forever.. and that is a good reason to strive towards a one party govt... if we ever do that or reach that stage, we will ruin our own future.. the future generation will suffer from our folly. much as there is no absolute merit in having opposition mps, there is no absolute merit in having a one party rule..

genting international, a casino giant

genting international's $5 billion package for the marina casino makes many people salivate.. how could a little casino operator afford to fork out that kind of money in a single project, and all private fund.. not money printed by the govt.. lim goh tong is standing tall against the american and international giants in his bid for a stake in the budding casino industry in singapore and the region.. and his bid is practically all from his own group of companies.. unlike sands and harrahs or mgm who share the cost with local property developers.. this is what individual enterprise is all about.. the wisdom, the foresight, the hard work, the business acumen and a little luck and plenty of guts to put in the money, mainly his own money. no govt to nanny or to pull all the strings. the only thing bad about lim goh tong is that he is one of the statistics that provide the impetus for the 9th malaysian racist economics plan.. his assets, and the few like him, will add to tip the scale in favour of the non bumiputras as if all non bumiputras are as rich as him.. and the ambitious bumiputras all wanted to be like him or at least have his wealth by telling the govt how to take it from the country.. people who cannot create wealth or did not have the knowhow or willingness to slog for it will find the money that they grabbed without sweating for it quickly slips away.. wealth creation and making money is not simply ask and be given.. or perhaps yes, ask and be given but be lost in no time. that is what the 9th economic plan will try to do.

diplomacy of flirtation

it is reported that the usa might have to back out or amend the nuclear arms deal with india.. looks like the solicitation of rice in india and indonesia may be stopped in its path and bush's diplomacy of flirtation is off.. this wild gambit of sleeping with your potential enemies can only come from a desperate regime that cannot find a better way out of the corner it has painted itself into.. the grandeur plans of an empire is cracking up.

ge round 20: no one is left behind

yesterday hsien loong said the govt to press on to make sure no one is left behind as singapore progress.. and the purpose of the workfare bonus as reported, 'the bonus, which rewards regular and productive work bythese workers aged 40 and above...' and people working odd jobs will also be regarded as productive, not minding the fact that their work is not regular.. then those full time housewives, whose work is regular, are not considered productive and will not get any workfare bonus. is there anybody left behind when a whole army of full time housewives are written off as not productive?

ge round 19: flair and individuality

the latest three candidates gave a refreshing turn to the otherwise heard it before or seen it before scenario. first there is this landed property lawyer who wants to return something to society.. alright this tune is what sai siong did not want to hear.. but he was not one who benefitted from government scholarship and trying to repay society.. though he claimed that his father was not rich, well, a landed property in bukit timah cannot be poor either.. presumably he went overseas on his father's scholarship. the best statement from palmer: 'so, i can't see why they say there's no level playing field.' he will probably not be able to see many more things if he can't see the unlevel playing field now. then there is this good looking part time model who could not sleep after being humbled by shanmugam and knew what his calling is, to serve the people.. ain't this script more interesting?.. a young man so awed by a politician that he had to step forward to serve. the third candidate is every inch a pap.. the way she speaks, thinks and talks, gave the impression that she is a pap veteran, fought, grown and contributed to the success story of pap and singapore.. i like the way she put forward her position.. we are good, and if the opposition cannot catch up it's their problem.. there is no need to apologise for being good, or for the opposition to being not good enough.. she is what pap is, frank, honest and straight to the point, no beating around the bush.. we are good and the opposition needs to shape up or be left behind. the election rally is going to be interesting

the sun rises from the west

i saw in the news last night that singapore power is cutting its rate for 3 months.. never in my life would i believe this is possible. we need to have general elections every year.. then the people will have a better and easier time.

a half causeway is not a causeway

syed hamid did the sensible thing by asking malaysian politicians not to make comments on the bridge while the negotiation is still on.. this is different from the gagging of non muslims from discussing islam.. the appeal to tone down the heated talks is to help the negotiation process. as for the cutting of the causeway, lets look at it from another angle.. if both parties are owners of a house or bridge, can one party decide unilaterally to cut it into two? a half house or half bridge is neither a house or a bridge.. this is not just breaking down a dividing wall. when a bridge is no longer a bridge, or when a causeway is no longer a causeway, there is a change in its utility.. would the party causing the change and a loss of value to the causeway be made to compensate the other party? would the party who made the bridge or house no longer a house pay for the damage or loss in value? even if the bridge or house is now connected to a new structure, it is no longer the same bridge or house.. the causeway in this case is no longer a causeway but a hybrid, like a liger.