Saiful Burkhari being threatened

Saiful Burkhari has received threats to his life and is now under police protection. Anwar also received threats and I believe Balasubramaniam also received threats to his life. Where is Balasubramaniam? Under whose protection? What happens if the people giving the protection will likely be the people that do the killing? In the case of Saiful, it is so easy to kill him and put the blame on Anwar. Where is safe in Malaysia? In a matter of a few months, the whole climate of politics has changed. Actually not true. This kind of politics started during the time of Mahathir. Many were threatened but kept quiet. Judges and politicians are now starting to talk about it. Who has ruined Malaysia? The exact people who proclaimed that they were the protectors of Malaysia have done it.

Bloggers, please stop blogging

This is the plea of Abdullah Badawai for all bloggers to stop blogging. He is putting it squarely on the shoulders of bloggers and those who SMS for creating a climate of fear in Malaysia. The atmosphere is now full of anxiety, tension and cynicism. Even the credibility of his govt and all the national leaders are now in question. Thanks or no thanks to the bloggers. The TOM is non consequential. When the national media is no longer credible or believeable, it is only natural that the people desert them and seek news from where they think is reliable. The TOM is not only telling and repeating stale and unsatisfactory news, it is no longer worth listening to. That is how bad Malaysian media industry has become. What next? After the plea, if unheeded, there may be sanctions and clamping down. Blogging could be banned in Malaysia and bloggers persecuted, arrested and jailed. Their fingers will be chopped off. A new witchhunt will begin and a new enemy of the state will be declared. Yes, bloggers will be the new enemy. The pen is mightier than the sword. The fingers are mightier than the pen. All the bloggers will run into hiding, into the jungle for fear of persecution and had their fingers chopped. Long live the revolution! Long live the bloggers. These will be the new war cry.

We feel safe with our men in uniform

What is happening in Malaysia is frightening. Just over a few years, the state of safety and security has gone to such a low that one has to run away from the people who are supposed to protect you. Balasubramaniam, the PI who signed a Statutory Declaration that Najib Razak knew the murdered Mongolian model is now on the run. He must have feared for his life and the lives of his family. The police has made a public assurance to guarantee his safety, just like Anwar's wife asking Abdullah to guarantee his safety. There is now a manhunt going on for him and his family on a scale no lesser than Mas Selamat. Would it be a hunt in vain, that he no longer exists? Silencing becomes pertinent and seems like an acceptable option in Malaysian politics today. And several candidates are ripe to be silenced. Who will be next? Balasubramaniam, Anwar Ibrahim, the Razak Baginda in prison are so perilous. When a country reaches such a state when the citizens fear the law enforcing officers for their lives, it is very serious.

Find your own truth

This marketing manager Murray Lim must be quite pissed off to the extend that he took his own camera, his car and time, and went about collecting evidence on the road conditions to prove that it was not that bad. He definitely disagreed with the findings of the LTA to justify more ERPs and higher toll rates. He took 9 days and presented his evidence to LTA. Of course his evidence was not accepted. What he thought was good traffic flow may not be what LTA thought was good. It is like a parent demanding 100 marks from his child when the child thought 99 is good enough. When both parties work on different terms of reference, of course the one in authority is right. It is their terms of reference that will be used to decide what the policy should be. Good try.

The law is the law

To keep Singaporeans from committing crimes abroad, some of our laws have been amended, if I am not wrong, to charge Singaporeans who went overseas for child sex. These Singaporeans would not escape punishment on their return as committing such an offence overseas or locally is still an offence. TOM reported that there were at least 350 Singaporeans who had kidney transplants overseas. And now that our law forbids such acts and regarded them as an offence, will the long arm of the law go searching to haul all these offenders to courts? The law is the law, so they said.

Today acknowledges cyberspace

Today is changing its presentation and one of the reasons is that there is a new reader in cyberspace. According to Today, this new reader is 'one who is more tech savvy, who is plugged into real time news, impatient and who moves through information fast. We need to keep pace with you.' The cyberspace has arrived. No one is going to wait for the newsboy to deliver the paper the next morning. The news is here 24/7, non stop and unstoppable. We are living with news and creating news and demanding news at all times. Today will try to keep pace, that is only in its online version. But with paid professionals who work on regular or regimented hours, it will have a hard time keeping up with the readers who will be in and out of the internet or be there all the time. Today's news is fast and furious. Time waits for no one. So is the news today.

With heart and mission

Vivian Balakrishnan was famous for his answer to Lily Neo in parliament when the later pleaded to his ministry to increase the allowance for those on public assistance scheme. His reply was something like, do they want to eat in a restaurant or a food court or in a hawker centre. This image has been stucked with Vivian since then. I think Vivian is having a change of heart. Despite all the great men still talking about the virtues of market forces and not meddling with them even when prices are escalating without control when a little control is demanded and can stop the spiralling, Vivian is saying something else. 'Government policies and the free market are no longer enough to ensure economic growth....No longer can (these)...guarantee that there is no hunger, poverty and unfairness in the world.' In essence what he said is that 'he believes the cooperatives' way of doing business, "with heart and mission", is even more critical.' The heart is coming into the picture in govt policies. This will be good news to the less fortunate and they should stop accusing the govt of not having a heart. The heart is appearing and growing. And this will be the case if everyone thinks like Vivian and acted on it. If....

Giving is the greatest act of Charity

To give selflessly is the greatest act of Charity. Singaporeans were encouraged to give their money and whatever, in charity shows, not for anything in return, but an act of love, to help the less fortunate. But when something is tied to this act, to give and to receive in turn for the good deed, it is no longer a charitable act. If one wants to give, one must give without any thought of getting something back. As the greatest debate on organ trading descended on paradise, we are hearing two opposing views on this sensitive and painful issues of organ donation. The do gooders, the champions of the poor and unfortunate, the protector of the weak, say no, we cannot exploit them. The value of their organs is priceless. On the other corner, the people who have experienced the pain and despair of a dying kidney failure patient, were strongly in favour of legalising the trade. They have lived through their parts of seeing a loved one dying. They have gone through the desperation of finding all avenues of help closed to them. They have lived like the end of tomorrow was staring at them. Only the availability of an organ could bring back some hope to their lives. Their argument is that the donors will also stand a chance to benefit from his involuntary act other than saving a life. The money he gets could bring to them a new lease of a better life. Is that wrong? When there is no compulsion, no exploitation, with all the regulations in place to ensure that it is a deal that is as fair as possible to both parties, would not that be sufficient to let the transaction go through? Only the donor will know how bad he needs the money and how much he is willing to part with his organ. He has his own price given his own situation. No price is right or too expensive. But price is relative, just like the price of a human life. Some are dirt cheap or worthless. Some rather die than live. There is one group that is conspicuously absent from this debate. The hard thinking, pragmatic and market mechanism believers. This group can be expected to come out and say the brutal truth. Or at least say something that we should not meddle with the market forces and let the market determine the value of the organ. Maybe they are waiting for someone close to be afflicted with this modern day plague before they speak out in favour of organ trading. Or maybe they are indulging in such trade quietly, not wanting to be known that they too have done it. For the moment, the gods of righteousness and high moral win. Organ trading should not be allowed. The law should deal harshly with those who committed such despicable acts of exploiting the poor and desperate. And those who went overseas quietly to have it done, they should be punished on their return. This is the current morality on organ trading in paradise. I am saying current because the standard of morality is subjective, relative and variable from place to place and in time.

Not a matter of faith, but of rights

July 5, 2008 I REFER to the open letter NTUC Income chief executive officer Tan Suee Chieh sent to me last Wednesday and, presumably, to the rest of Income's policyholders. It is unfortunate that Mr Tan and his new management team have not grasped the fundamental concern of existing policyholders regarding Income's bonus-restructuring exercise. Contrary to what he believes is a question of faith in him and his management team, the bone of contention for most policyholders is about how Income has unilaterally restructured the bonus scheme on not only new insurance plans, but existing ones as well. The key question Mr Tan and his management team should ask is this: If the customer had known that Income would execute an about-turn and change the bonus proportion at its own discretion, would the then-prospective policyholder have signed up? It should be the right of each consumer or policyholder, not the insurer, to determine what is in his best interest. The fact that NTUC Income has unilaterally implemented the change in the bonus scheme without allowing existing policyholders the choice of opting in or out shows a complete disregard for the sanctity of policy agreements and policyholders' rights and freedom to choose. I must therefore question the sincerity of Income's 'guided principles' to protect and enhance the interests of its policyholders. It is like telling a child he is being locked in a cage to prevent him falling down and getting hurt. As society progresses and the financial sector matures, we expect a more balanced approach to consumers' rights. Dennis Liu The above is a letter printed in the ST forum. Just reflect a little on what other organisations are doing the same thing and getting away with it. Changing the terms and conditions midstream, claiming that it is for your own good and leaving you with no right to object or to opt out. This is the kind of degeneration of the rights of the people or consumers. An organisation can do what it wants, changing the goal posts, and get away with it.

It is hip to be poor!

At a time when we celebrate our Golden Years, it is also a time to be hip to be poor in paradise. Let's help the losers feel a little better by telling teaching them to brag out loudly on how to stinge a few cents to get by. Let's not be shy about it. When one does not have the money, do the things that the have nots have been doing, and make them sound fashionable. The ST have reported 30 great ways to save, to tighten your belt, as a new life style. I too have been doing them quietly for many years, a bit ashame of the kinds of things I did to save some money. I walk instead of taking public transport, to save a few cents. But I will say that it is for exercise, for health reasons. I climb the stairs, also for the same reasons, but not telling people that I can't afford to join the famous gyms. I wear cheap watches or plastic ones, deliberately as if to dress down on purposes but actually can afford the $30k branded ones. Wear cheap imitation jeans from Bugis or pasar malam, tear and cut them everywhere to look authentically poor but hip. And everything is DIY to save on cost. Drink plain water and give the reasons that caffeinated drinks are bad for health. And I don't go to the barber, kept my hair long, tied it into a pony tail and look neither male nor female, then say it is the style, like artistes or movie stars. Feels great. There are many excuses to save money and act cool at the same time. Oh, I don't eat sharksfin too, to save the sharks. And to be eco friendly, I stop driving to town. Shhhhh, can't afford the high fuel cost and the high ERPs. Never mind squeezing, sweating and smelling all the body odour. Just got to bear with it. There is an Ah Q emerging inside me.

What should be the role of media?

Today paper is getting quite a lot of attention lately since it took on a more aggressive stance. It took a strong position on the fiascos by the Home Ministry and then an opinionated article on Rosmah Mansor, the wife of Najib Razak. And the attention came from the Malaysian High Commissioner Parameswaran and also eliciting a comment from Hsien Loong not to take sides. Then Paul Jacob added by saying that what Today was doing was nothing knew as the Malaysian media were reporting similar slanted articles about Singapore politicians. Both sides can play the game. I think the problem lies in the impression that the Singapore TOM is synonymous with the govt or official mouth piece. And to allow articles that were unpleasant about another country, especially Malaysia, is like the govt condoning it. That is one of the disadvantage of being seen as being part of the govt. But of course TOM is an independent and privately run organisation and such perception is not justified. It is run by independent minded professionals who pride themselves as being well trained and their pieces as being well researched and objectives. What Today has done is a good thing. It makes the paper more colourful and readable instead of the former staid reporting, or like other TOM, reporting of stale and single dimensional pro official slant that immediately puts off the readership. We should have more opinionated pieces on issues local and foreign to give readers a chance to examine them more thoroughly and provoke into thinking a little more. The straight reporting of facts only assumes that the readership is unthinking and dull and would not be able to sieve the truth from the tooth. This opening up of TOM to be more expressive is a step in the right direction but would be better if the views are not seen as an official view or officially sanctioned one.

How to sodomise a man?

Very simple. Ask the guy to go with you to a condominium. Then ask him to remove his pants and bend down. Then he is all yours. That could possibly be what had happened to the case of Saiful Bukhari Azlan when he claimed to be sodomised by Anwar Ibrahim. And according to TOM, he was with Anwar on many trips overseas. The question that is puzzling me is that a man, a healthy young man, would not protest and allow himself to be sodomised. A woman would fight when she is being raped or has sex forced upon her. This young man was so obedient, no resistance. And after some time decided to report to the police about the incident. Would any young man fight off a would be attacker who attempts to sex him? Telling the guy off would surely be the least thing to do. Here, it seemed like consensual, a willing partner. Is this a guy or a gay? He seems normal, with a girlfriend. Any normal man will repulse any such moves against his virginity. Very strange story.

My beautiful organs

I join the best and most expensive gyms in town and pay them thousands just to keep my body beautiful and organs functioning at their peak. I pound the threadmills, pump the irons, and do all kinds of aerobics to keep the hearts going. And I swallow many pills, supplements and vitamins to keep me in prime condition. It is a great investment of my time and money, to be trim and fit, and my organs in perfect condition. Why is it that my organs belong to the state should I die? What have the state done, or contributed to my prime organs? Can I will them to my children to be sold to the highest bidder? These are my precious assets that I consciously helped to produce. Am I being paranoid, having a nightmare, that my body does not belong to me? The state owns my body!

Children of lesser gods

Toni and Sulaiman were both fined and jailed for their parts in the sale of kidney to Tang Wee Sung. They must know that in a country that is run on the principles of rule of law, justice will come down hard and swift. Whether they are smart ass super talents or penniless and ignorant kampong bums, our justice is blind. They will be dealt with in the same manner. The funny thing is that Toni was exploited when he sold his kidney to Juliana Soh. Now he is helping Sulaiman to be exploited by trying to sell his kidney as well. Probably he must be relishing the great times he had in one of the best hospitals money can buy. Great cushion bed, attached toilet, colour TV and room service with beautiful nurses in attendance. That was what he got when he was exploited. And when he went home, he was back to his wooden hut and probably bed was a few pieces of planks nailed together. And every night the mosquitoes were having a feast from him. Maybe not. With the 186 mil rupiah, he could afford some comfort and not to work for another 16 years. Now both will spend time in jail. Free meals, probably better than what they were getting back home. And I think ceiling fans are provided. And yes, they have fans back in their kampongs, the hand held kind made from palm leaves. I can't help thinking that the two will be back again to volunteer to be exploited. Life has never been that good to them before.

Incalcitrant or simply uncaring?

The GST is perhaps the most efficient taxation model that has arrived in paradise. And as usual, the complacent citizens of paradise just accept it without a single grunt of unhappiness. The GST is so pervasive and invasive that it taxes a person before he comes into this world and taxing him even on his last act, his funeral. No one is spare. But the GST can be moderated to lighten the load on the miserable poor by having exemptions on basic necessities. But this has been frown upon by the gods. The gods believe that with the money collected, they could use it to help the poor in a better and more focussed way. Unfortunately, the practical aspects in redistributing this loot is not as easy as the GST. There is no way to reach everyone that needs help. Many who are badly in need of help will simply not step forward, did not know the way or refused to be helped. And for the insenstive assholes who cajoled all those who needs help to step forward, don't be shy, we will help you, it is the worst kind of human attitude that one can display against the poor. There is nothing to be ashamed of to be poor. But it is very very shameful to stretch out your hands to beg for help. And to beg in public, under the spotlight of everyone, how dehumanising must one to go through to get that little assistance. Exempting basic necessities from GST is the most honourable and dignified way of helping the poor without abusing their little pride and self respect. Is is help without making people beg for it. And it is as pervasive and far reaching as the GST. When will the evil gods amend their uncaring ways in their dealings with the underprivilege? Do they get entertained or satisfaction to see the helpless poor come crawling for help at their feet?

Good reasons to welcome more foreign talents

The PRs are helping to drive up the prices of resale flats. HDB owners are going to reap a handsome profit from selling their flats. Those who are not selling can rent their flats at higher prices. A 4 rm flat used to fetch $1000 pm in rental can now fetch $2000. So the oldies can forget about the CPF Life Insurance as they are assured of a $2000 income a month and can even get more. This is shielded from inflation unlike the money stuck in CPF. When inflation goes up, the rental will go up as well. Let's welcome the foreign talents. The more the merrier. And with HDB prices going up, private property owners can see their properties appreciate as well. Oh, just a little catch. Where are the HDB sellers going to stay if they sell their flats? Would they end up with a bigger boulder tied around their necks when they upgrade to more expensive private properties?

What kind of govt do we want?

Today we have a govt that think or decide what is good for us. The govt will tell us what they think they should be doing. Or the govt will just decide what they want to do, and no matter how we protest, how we disagree, how we kpkb, they simply go ahead and do what they want to? Or do we want a govt that do what we want them to do? OK, we may be asking too much, not knowing what we are demanding, but should the govt at least listen to what we want? Can we tell the govt that during bad times, when we are feeling the heat, we want the govt to bring down the cost of living or at least stop raising fees and charges. And not raising fees and charges! And can we ask to govt to spend some of its reserves to alleviate the tough times we are going through? Or do we want a govt that says, ok, costing of living is going up. It is beyond our control and you people must tighten your belt. Don't expect the govt to mess around with market forces. That is not the right thing to do. People must live with the situation and make the best they can. Expecting the govt to help? Don't, we are not a welfare state. We don't give handouts. We expect the people to change their lifestyles and substitute their food with cheaper food. Now, what is a govt for? We vote people to form the govt for what? Did we vote people to rule over us?

Myth 184 - How much is the President and PM paid?

Officially and often quoted in theTOM, both are paid about $3.4 to $3.6 million annually, not including any other perks. It is also a well known fact that the annual bonus is between 6 mths to 9 mths, possibly 12 mths. So how much when you add both together? $3.4m or $3.6m? Or $5-$7 mil? And the life time pension of something like 75% of their basic pay could boost this amount by easily another $2 mil. So how much are their pays?

Time to kill the living gods

The living gods once found adultery so detestable that both parties will be drown in a cage when caught. The living gods also claimed that virtuous women shall be buried alive with their husbands. And those who do not believe in the same god as the living gods should be burnt alive at the stakes. Villages were torched and their population cut down by the living gods. Today, the living gods are still much alive and kicking and dictating to the human beans what they think is good for the beans. If your kidney is failing, wait for your turn, if you are lucky, a kidney will arrive. If not, wait to die. And the poor shall be protected from exploitation by the rich and to live in dignity and in poverty. The living gods also said that human beans shall live past 85 years. Sorry about your money in the CPF. No the living gods never say sorry. They just keep it for you. And the living gods also said you will need more visits to the hospitals when you grow old. Abracadabra, your $30k becomes untouchable. What else do the living gods say? Maybe it is time to burn them on the stake. They deserve it for being so righteous and so kind.

The fanatics decide who should die!

Under the cloud of high moral fanatics The kidney patient is dying. Across the road, several thousands were also dying... of hunger. Some may still get by, living a life of extreme deprivation, never ever have a single day of a decent meal. The obvious outcome is that the kidney patient will die if he can't get a kidney transplant. Many of the hungry and deprived beans wil also die, miserably, without a day of joy and contentment to have a hearty meal. They simply cannot afford it. But the kidney patient may live, and some of these hungry mouths could live better, if the gulf created by the high moral fanatics could be bridged. The logic of these fanatics is that the poor will be exploited by the rich. When has the poor not been exploited by the rich? Then, shouldn't they ask the poor if they are happy to live their pathetic lives given a choice to sell a piece of their organ to those who need them? Who should decide or who is deciding the fate of the kidney patients and the desperate poor? It is bad to benefit from the desperation of the poor to buy their organs. Sound very noble and very tooth. What if the choice is a better life, free from deprivation, and still live on? What if it is a conscious choice, carefully deliberated, that the man is willing to part with his organ to provide for himself and family, a better life, and live with some dignity? What these fanatics have done is to impose their values, their goodness and their selfish do gooder mentality on the desperate poor by not offering them a choice. The fanatics have decided and judged that they should not be allowed to live better by trading their organs. And the fanatics will walk with their heads hung high, that they are morally righteous, that they have helped these poor and deprived beans to live on, hungry every day, with little food and clothing. The fanatics will feel so good that they are their guardians, self declared. That all these miserable people are unable to think for themselves and needed to be protected from exploitation by the rich. Is that so? Who is more righteous? Why can't civilised people, people of the law, work out some rules and regulations to protect the poor from exploitation and allow them to trade their body parts if they so wanted, without jeopardising their lives, so that they and their families can live better? Are the fanatics really helping them by closing off their options!