it is all in the faces

Well they said a picture is worth a thousand words. And I was looking at the colourful picture of Lui Tuck Yew and the six students in the Straits Times yesterday. One whole page devoted to the topic of National Education and a 5R full colour photo of the participants right in the middle. I skipped the wordings, too wordy and a topic too familiar to read it in detail. What fascinated me was the facial expression on the faces of the students and their body language. Hanisah Maskon said, 'What's Lui talking about?' Hers was a quiet attentive look. Next was this red shirt guy, Benjamin Lin, with his body leaning away from Lui as if saying better to keep your distance. And Gayle Goh, her fist in her mouth and a look that said she was in Orchard Road or somewhere out there. She was so far away though sitting so near to Lui. Tan Yee Ling was listening, but you cannot miss the scepticism in her expression. Robert Straughan was more interested in the chemistry of the half empty glass of ice cream or milk shake. He was trying to guess which was which. And Muhammad Nabil, the bright one from RI was perhaps the only one still engaged in the conversation. And of course, Lui was the one doing the preaching, or talking. Was there a generation gap or were they talking about something world's apart?

radical thoughts about babies

Radical Thoughts Babies shortage, not enough man to be soldiers, more new citizens needed. The question is how many soldiers are needed to defend against the perceived foe? The second question is whether we can survive just on our own capability or do we need backups from allies? It all depends on the strategy on how to defend a small island state. It may not be appropriate to discuss such matters here and also it is not a simple issue to deal with. But we could take some broad strokes on this dwindling number of service men to defend the country. If we can maintain the present strength, maybe a little lesser if we cannot produce the numbers we want, the small shortfall can be compensated by technology and superior weapons. With this as the bottom line, is it possible not to be too obsessed with more in numbers? What about mecenaries as a supplement? Would an additional two divisions of mercenaries be enough? We have been living with the Gurkhas as mercenary soldiers for sometime. Could options be made to have one or two divisions of Gurkhas on call if needed? Given their lower cost, we should be able to pay for them in a crisis. Not forgetting that we have a standing armed forces of our own, which is the key to our own defence and that only we can defend our own country, to activate the mercenary soldiers, it would mean that we are in a state of war, which is still a remote possibility. The other option is to sign defence treaties with friendly forces like the 5 Nation Defence Pact, or maybe with the US to come to our defence when attacked. We still have our own forces to hold the fort for the initial phases of engagement. With these two options available, we may not be so desperate to have more headcounts as war is not an option for us. We should at all times be striving for peaceful co existence with everyone and the ultimate defence by military means should hopefully not be called upon. Simply put, diplomacy first, and building bridges to avoid conflict. Second, have a respectable defence capability of our own. Third, to be able to draw upon a mercenary force or from friendly allies. Would these be adequate measures to avert the pressure of not enough babies?

new citizen policy a wake up call

Inviting more new immigrants and foreign talents is just a wake up call for the sloppy and less competitive Singaporeans. The young Singaporeans have lost the fighting spirit of their immigrant parents. They have been living a cosy life, brought up in an era of plenty, expecting everything to be delivered to them in a silver platter. The drive of the pioneering generation is needed to resusitate an aging and ailing Singapore to life, to reinvent Singapore into a vibrant nation. The new migrants, hungry and willing, will be the new blood in the driver seat. Local born Singaporeans either shape up or ship out. The govt is not there to doddle and appease them with goodies every year. They cannot depend on the charity of the govt. We are not a welfare state. Fight for the right to be in this oasis of wealth and abundance, and the right to call it home. Citizens or not, there is no privileges except talent. Be a worthy member and you will find this island very rewarding, an island of opportunities.

myth 59

'Life is fair' Many of you would have read in the papers yesterday about this guy who has more than 70 wives. He is a leader of a religious cult in the US. And he assumes the supreme position of the top leader after inheriting the cult group from his father. In his position he takes all the women he fancy. He decides who should have more wives, who should not have wives, and banishes the guys to reduce competition for women within the group. And I believe all of you have a lot of questions about the privileges of this guy and why the rest of his flock obey him and willingly be subservient to him. One of his strength is a group of body guards to protect him and his excesses. Does this guy know that he is having too much, of women and other goodies that his other cult members do not have? Oh, he is quite smart in making sure that his close circles of leaders also enjoy the same privileges, but lesser than him. Everyone in his circle will obviously be as happy and dedicated to preserve the system and status quo. Not only that he, and they, do not think anything wrong with their abundance. They do not seem interested to change the system or make it more equitable to the rest of the group. Why should they when they are enjoying all the perks and largesses? To them, it is a natural order of things. The more able of the group deserves better things and more women. And very likely if anyone would come out with some stupid idea of distributing the women more evenly among the men he will be shot down. It is the selfish nature of men that it is ok for themselves to have more than others. It is like our widening income gap issue. It is not really a problem. It is only a problem to those who are at the wrong end of the equation. If one is enjoying the good time, at best maybe offer some condolence to the less fortunate. But the system must be preserved, as it is good for their own wellbeing. Fortunately there is a bigger god to arrest the cult leader.

Robotics is the way to go.

Robotics is the way to go. There is no need for so many foreigners to make up the 8 million. Think robotics. Many ministries and stats boards need only be manned by robots. Many of them have so perfect rules and procedures that they can run without human interferences. Even problems and questions by the public can be answered by answering machines or FAQs in the websites. By replacing them with robots, the existing manpower can be reallocated to areas where they need humans to manage. Organisations or departments where thinking humans are required, where flexibility and exceptions are needed in the daily decision making process. Among the ministries and stats boards that can be completely manned by robots will be CPF, Income Tax, PUBs, LTA, BCA, HDB etc And robots can be programmed to smile as well.

the sun will rise from the east!

Today Chok Tong said tomorrow the sun will rise from the East, or something like that. What he actually said was that with globalisation, the income gap between the rich and poor will continue to widen. Anyone does not know or have not heard this statement of unquestionable and irreversible truth? Is this going to be a fact that the poor/govt must accept? Or are conditions gravitating towards the pre revolutionary days when the only way out for the poor is the destruction of the existing system, to start all over again, a revolution? An uncontrolled capitalist and free market system will move in this direction, up to a point when the division is so stark that only a confrontation of the two extremes will level the playing field. It is natural that the rich will want to be richer. And if they are some crumbs to be thrown around, some will. The other truths are greed and selfishness. Nobody will complain that they have too much money. And Chok Tong then posed the question of how to distribute the wealth of the nation to the poorer segment of the population. There is no need for supertalents to make super money using public fund and the authority of the state and state mechanism. Any idiot can do that. The real test comes when they have to uplift the less able people, a large group of people at the bottom rung of society. How to return some wealth to these less endowed and less fortunate people, the lazy and lost ones? It is time the supertalents use their talents that were paid by super salaries to tackle this enormous problems and justify their existence. An easier solution is to let this lot die naturally, or fade away, their problems contained and unseen. Unfortunately, this lot is like the lallangs. They will keep returning to be trampled. The waste lands will always be covered with lallangs unless big effort and resources are applied to keep them away. Landscaping caused money. Making the poor look less miserable needs a lot of money and attention.

myth 58

'We frown on Quitters!' This statement has become a joke. Or is it? We were so unkind to Singaporeans who quit and left for foreign shores. Today, we are praising all the quitters of foreign shores and welcoming them here with open arms. We want to make non Singaporean quitters feel that they are a highly desirable commodity and we will go all out to make it easier for them to be here. Double speak, double talk, forked tongue? Heads I win, tail you lose. Quitters are no longer frowned. Quitters are good and precious.

should we invest in the southern johore econ zone?

The Southern Johore Economic Zone is going to take off. Now we are seeing the two trade ministers talking about cooperation and developing the concept. How about Khairy's talk of the SJEZ purpose of making Singapore begging Malaysia if it is a success? Shouldn't Singapore stay out of this project if that is the purpose? Time to talk sense and do business instead of politiking for personal interest and stirring up inter state rivalry and emotions.

cpf my money!

The people's right to their CPF money must be revisited everyday to remind the authority that it is the people's money and not the govt's money. Wonder what the IMF would have to say if they know about such things? Oh, perhaps we should privatise the CPF to make it more efficient and effective in managing the people's money. At the moment it is so happy just to hoard the people's money, paying minimal interest rate and even charging administrative fee for withdrawal to pay medical bills. The CPF board should start cracking its head on how to get the best insurance policy for old age and return the bulk of the money to the people instead of thinking of increasing the amount of money retained by the board.

anti missile shield for singapore

This is the headline by a Defence Correspondence, David Boey, in the Straits Times today. The main point in the article is that it is prudent for Singapore to have anti missile shield now that it is within the range of ballistic missiles from North Korea, China, Russia and the USA. Now let me see, does any of these nations has a reason to shoot missiles at us? North Korea does not even know that we exist. China is our good friend and has publicly stated that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons on any country. Presumably firing an ICBM and to be cost effective, it must have a nuclear warhead and not 20 kilo of TNT. Russia, well, think it will be too busy with Eastern Europe. The USA? Our closest allies, but could be a threat if they decided to leave us out in the cold when they found a more valuable friend. It has all the capabilities and has been threatening everyone they don't like with pre emptive nuclear threat. So shall we buy an anti missile shield from the US to defend against American missiles flying at us? And if they do so, I don't think any anti missile system can hold them back. What about the others, including potential new enemies from the Middle East? Now, why would we have enemies who would find us so naugthy of deserving a missile strike? Possible, if we keep perching on top of our HDB flat and show our two fingers to people we have nothing to do with or showing them monkey faces. I would think it is more prudent to take a low profile, be friends to everyone, and use the money to build a few more IRs. PS: In the case of Malaysia, by the time the missile is airborne it will be in Indonesia.

taxi woes and passenger woes

Siew Kum Hong raised the issue that in the forthcoming review of public transport systems, the taxis are being left out? Is it because the system is working efficiently and nothing else needs to be done? Or the people on the right side think that everything is right while the people on the wrong side think that everything is wrong? And while one side thinks that many things ought to be done, the other thinks otherwise? We have heard many complains and the woes of the taxi drivers and passengers. One complaining not enough passengers and the other not enough taxis. The only people not complaining are the taxi companies. I was waiting at the roadside last sat morning, before 6am, for my golf kaki to pick me up. Were there any taxis at that hour? During that 15 minutes while I was there, with my golf bags on the roadside, there were at least 20 taxis hovering and hopping that I wave my hand. All of them were empty. They were so hungry for passengers. And can't complain that they were lazy, waking up so early in the morning to drive their cabs. What is wrong? Those who can afford it will have their own private cars. Those who don't have private cars cannot afford the taxi fares. That is the problem. Very fundamental problems. Now who is hooting that our taxi fares are cheap compare to other big cities and should actually double it so that the taxi drivers could double their income? Insanity!

myth 57

'Open door to welcome new talented citizens' I thought this was for real. But after thinking about it a little deeper, it is clear that it is a message for Singaporeans to wake up, a wake up call. For if they don't, then they must be prepared to face another few million foreigners to replace them. And this is where the myth lies. Look at it this way, without any incentives or promotions, there are already a few millions queuing to be our citizens. These are the hairdressers, the waiters and waitresses, the masseurs, the talented construction workers, the environment specialists etc. To these people, there is no incentive needed. Just open the door and say welcome, and we will have 3 millions signing up. Of course these are not the talents that we want right? Other than the special attributes that are needed for masseurs, the rest of the jobs can be done by our very own Dad's army. Ok, construction workers is another issue. And the highly talented foreign talents will see no need to be citizens of any country. They are welcome anywhere they wish to go. So thinking of attracting this group is a fallacy. What about the in between, the not so talented talents, mostly PRs? Would this group be interested in becoming citizens? Why should they when they are so happy just being PRs? There are no real benefits in becoming citizens than what they are enjoying now. And worst, they are likely to be worst off after becoming citizens. If the govt is serious, it is only expected that they will make becoming citizens so attractive that all the PRs would also want to change their status. So, is this welcoming more citizens thing a myth?

soliciting for new citizens

Cheng Yoke Wah, a column writer for Today, has been here for 20 years. She married her husband who is also a PR. But when the question was raised, why not citizenship, it becomes a different matter. Her reasons, as she penned in the Today paper, is a matter of heart. Singapore is an adopted country, adopted parents, and her home country is where her biological parents are. In her view, it smacks of being ungrateful to disown her own parents by becoming a true blue child of the adopted parents. But she is loyal to Singapore. She sang the Singapore anthem with gusto and sincerity. Or is it a mixed up sense of being grateful to Singapore for giving her a good life, a fair and equal opportunity to live well and with respect? It is understandable that people have feelings. The bonds of the home, the memories of childhood and the familiar surroundings where one grew up are important bits and pieces of our emotional ties. To severe this link by taking up a new citizenship, is a big pyschological decision to make. There will be many who will instantly trade in their passports for our red passports when they compare what they could be as from what it would be. As we move pass this group, there will be many who will take the plunge for less desirable reasons. We should not buy citizenship. We should not prostitute ourselves to anyone. We should go all out to buy PRs and talents. Citizenship is still a valid concept today and has more intrinsic and psychological values than just a piece of paper or a red passport. Many who are from the more developed and established nations will not want to part with their citizenships for ours. Many will temporary part with their less desirable citizenships for ours and planning to swop it for even more desirable citizenships. What's wrong with the current policy of having PRs, WPs and EPs? If numbers is what we want, these schemes will continue to provide us the numbers when we want it and to cut down when we do not want them. We have the best of both worlds. To consciously push for citizenship may not be the solution even to hope for more NS men. More of the undesirable or uncommitted could be more dangerous than having less. We can get the numbers through the present array of employment passes and PRs. Many of the talented are highly mobile and are happy just to be PRs and live in any where of their own choosing. We need not rush headon into something that can have a lot of adverse consequences in the future, by taking in everyone willing. The wider the door is thrown open, the higher the possibilities of inviting more trouble.

myth 56

'Encouraging lateral thinking: Mee siam mai hum.' Another myth? I am not referring to mee siam mai hum but the progress of imbuing Singaporeans to think laterally. Singaporeans were told to think out of the box and not to look at things at face value. In anything, there is always the positive side to it if one bothers to dig it out. Many Singaporeans had a good laugh at the mee siam mai hum anecdote. Some stretched it further towards the negative. Look at it another way, this simple phrase has set many thinking. Why can't mee siam have hum? Or why can't hum be added to mee siam, maybe create a new recipe from adding hum. Better still, a completely new dish. After the laughter has subsided, it is time to sit back and see what can be gained from this new insight, mee siam mai hum. Citizenship mai National Service, PRs mai citizenship, want the privileges of a citizen but mai responsibilities. Or chenghu mai opposition, opposition voice mai opposition candidates and parties...or have a new concept of a piece of land for all the talents mai citizenship. No citizenship is needed. All are equal and the more talented the more equal. How about a little dosage of lateral thinking and think out of the box? Did Hsien Loong set the nation thinking? or at least the cyberspace thinking?

foreign talents, balancing perks and privileges

The policy for foreign talent is as good as being cast in stone. Not that it is a bad policy per se. People are disagreeing with how it is being done, how far it is being carried out and undermining the interest or privileges of Singaporeans. I would just try to discuss on two points. Cost of living and privileges of being citizens versus PRs and the rest. The two points are interrelated and may overlap in many areas. While we welcome the new citizens with more attractive perks, and as their number grows and become a significant factor in all our activities, it may be opportune to factor in the difference between being citizens and PRs to favour citizens. Essential services like education, medical, transportations can be fine tuned to a point where citizens pay lesser than PRs. The difference may not be too big to become a disincentives but enough to make citizenship more respectable, valuable and attractive. As an example, the cost to PRs and the rest could be 10 or 20% higher than a citizen. If becoming a citizen marks the end of the honeymoon or romance as in a marriage, when the sweetness and fairy tale of courtship are transformed into more responsibilites, it becomes questionable for logical and rational people to want to become citizens. Being PRs is that much more interesting and attractive. Or like living together and having all the funs and not getting hitch and share the chores. The privileges of citizenship with respect to housing subsidies, taxation, even preference for employment in the govt sector can be modify to make citizenship a more desirable status than just being PRs. And when all the privileges of citizenship are cumulated, and found to be worth the while to compensate for the responsibilities and liabilities to serve national service, a life long commitment and sacrifice, taking up citizenship may make more sense for the PRS and at the same time sooth the people's anger.

a need for alternative views in cyberspace

The MSM is flooded with articles by any living reporters and journalists on the foreign talent issue as if they are singing in chorus to the wave of an imagery baton. All singing the same song, complimenting every point. No one is out of tune. Now is this classical, pop or jazz? Anyone hoping to hear rock or country and western will be disappointed. I tried scanning every piece of article hoping to fish out some alternative views or some disagreement with the policy, but as expected could not find any. They said wise men all think alike. This only leave the cyberspace for views that are contrary to conventional or official thinking. The trend of development for MSM and cyberspace is very natural, one adopting the views of the power that be and the other pulling away to express alternative views which associated with the disgruntles. The question that is left to be answered is whether the MSM can present a balance view or whether there is a place for alternative views in cyberspace? I think, after reading all the MSM reports on the foreign talent issue, the answer is pretty clear.

what george bush and prince charles have in common

In an article written by David G Myers fo the Straits Times Myers described Bush as a leader that made decisions, especially foreign policy decisions, based on his gut feel. He quoted Bush as saying, 'I know there's no evidence that shows the death penalty has a deterrent effect, but I just feel in my gut it must be true.' Very much like he got this gut feel that Saddam Hussein must have WMD and he launched a war in Iraq. Bush was also quoted to have told Larry King in an interview: "If you make decisions based upon what you believe in our heart of hearts, you stayed resolved.' The other leader of compatible leadership quality and wisdom is none other than Prince Charles of the British throne. This was what Charles said, 'Buried deep within each and everyone of us, there is an instinctive, heartfelt awareness that provides - if we allow it to - the most reliable guide.

we have decided. this is the way to go

This issue of throwing the door wide open to welcome foreigners as citizens is a case where people can agree or disagree with the govt's policy. The govt has made its calculations based on its own premises of what is good for Singapore. No doubt that the govt has done its homework and think that this is the only right way to go forward. And looking at how the main stream media jumps into it so quickly to support the policy wholesale, one begins to doubt the sincerity of the MSM in this issue. Are they just towing the official line or they really believe in it? But this is besides the point. The MSM has its right to believe and throw its weight behind any issue. What is interesting to note are the voices that disagree with this policy. Hopefully disagreeing with it or criticising it is not seen as anti govt or undermining the govt's policy. This is applicable to many issues. The people agree with many govt policies but pick on some that they don't agree. Often this little divergence of views is looked at with great disapproval though the mantra today is that the govt agree that they did not have all the answers. We have seen many policies that have gone wrong but continue to be pursued relentlessly. And any opposing views are frown upon and viewed at unkindly. The concerned Singaporeans are also interested in the wellbeing of the country and people. And every Singaporean has a stake in this country and has a right to air their concern. The only difference is that they are not in power to decide to go for alternative options. Just because the govt is empowered to make decisions, does not mean that decisions are always right and good for the people. The people are seeing the issue differently and can be right and the govt wrong. And unfortunately for such a decision, and with everyone singing hallelujah for now, the disapproving views may be drown. But the consequences of such a decision will only surface in the long run and it will be too late to turn back the clock.

let's recall the dad's army to serve the nation

Why do we need so many headcounts? Never heard of computerisation, mechanisation, multitasking, job redesign and restructuring? Also, if everyone is made to work until 80, we would have increase our productive population by a few hundred thousands, and with little development cost. With the stroke of the pen, retirement age at 80, we can put many people back into the job market

who is the biggest pirate of intellectual properties?

The champions of intellectual properties carry a big stick everywhere they go trying to catch the violaters and illegal operators. The pirate CD operators, the publishers of pirated copies of books etc. All will be booked when they are caught. But when you are big and appear to be doing a proper business, you can copy anything you want, stealing intellectual properties and selling them in the international market, and making billions in profits, and get away with it until you are caught. But because you have so much financial muscles, sometimes it is ok when caught, to threaten to counter sue the owner of the intellectual properties, then compromise and settle out of court with a minimal sum, and continues legally with the pirated material. Now after the settlement, it will not longer be stealing of intellectual properties. Who is the biggest pirate of intellectual properties?