According to Boon Wan, May 6 was a good day when good people would be elected to Parliament. I believe all 87 of them who were elected by the people are good people. So Low Thia Khiang and his Gang of 5 must also be good people. And if one is to include Yaw Shin Leong and the 2 NCMP from the Workers Party there were 8. This gets even more interesting, 1 lady and 7 guys, like ‘ba xian guo hai’, or the Eight Immortals crossing the sea.
Sure they will be causing waves when they have to face the Super 7 or the Fantastic 5. Not forgetting Zorro and ESM in Parliament. Comic books can be written based on such titles, like Hongkong and their 4 Heavenly Kings.
Don’t be surprised with such headlines in the MSM, ‘The 8 Immortals cross swords with the Fantastic 5.’
10/28/2011
Cronyism in the US
Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times wrote an interesting article about Occupy Wall Street Movement and corruption in the heart of capitalism, Wall Street and Washington. The article is in mypaper today. During the Asian financial crisis, the finger was pointed at Asian crony capitalism as the main cause of the crisis. Today the cause of the American financial crisis is exactly a result of American crony capitalism.
What is so unfair in the American system is that it allowed the cronies to more than their fair share of reward in the American financial system. As a result, it’s human for them to grab as much as they could. This is unlike Asian culture where there is propriety and no one will grab as much as they can just because the system allows them to. To make matter worst, the cronies privatized the profits and socialize the risk to the public or American citizens. And when they failed miserably, billions of taxpayers’ money were used to bail them out. But the moment they rigged up profits they started to pay themselves crazy again, without having to repay the public debt.
That is how brilliant the American system is. Fortunately the Asian countries knew of the rot in the American system and are not imitating them. The Americans like to point the finger at Asians for being corrupt when they were the most corrupt in the world. The only thing that is saving them is that they control the western media and the media would not write about them.
We don’t have problems with too big to fail institutions. And we do not need to make our tax payers bail out the big losses during the world financial crisis. And our big fund managers are doing so well that they deserved to be paid handsomely since no public funds were used to bail them out.
There is no such thing as privatizing profits and socializing risks here. We are safe. Our money, our reserves are safe. And we may even consider bailing out the Europeans if they come knocking at our door.
PS. Please feel free to disagree with me if you think I am writing nonsense. Writing nonsense is an art and also my forte.
What is so unfair in the American system is that it allowed the cronies to more than their fair share of reward in the American financial system. As a result, it’s human for them to grab as much as they could. This is unlike Asian culture where there is propriety and no one will grab as much as they can just because the system allows them to. To make matter worst, the cronies privatized the profits and socialize the risk to the public or American citizens. And when they failed miserably, billions of taxpayers’ money were used to bail them out. But the moment they rigged up profits they started to pay themselves crazy again, without having to repay the public debt.
That is how brilliant the American system is. Fortunately the Asian countries knew of the rot in the American system and are not imitating them. The Americans like to point the finger at Asians for being corrupt when they were the most corrupt in the world. The only thing that is saving them is that they control the western media and the media would not write about them.
We don’t have problems with too big to fail institutions. And we do not need to make our tax payers bail out the big losses during the world financial crisis. And our big fund managers are doing so well that they deserved to be paid handsomely since no public funds were used to bail them out.
There is no such thing as privatizing profits and socializing risks here. We are safe. Our money, our reserves are safe. And we may even consider bailing out the Europeans if they come knocking at our door.
PS. Please feel free to disagree with me if you think I am writing nonsense. Writing nonsense is an art and also my forte.
10/27/2011
Asian anxiety
I was reading an article by Michael Auslin in the Today paper on the cut of US military budget and how it will impact the security of Asian countries. It portrayed a concern that there will be more wars in
Asia if the American military presence is reduced. The author did not question that since the end of WW2, who was responsible for all the wars in Asia? Did anyone tell him it was the Americans that started all the wars? So, if America was the fire starter, would there be more wars or lesser wars with their reduced presence? They are still fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan and instigating the two Koreans to fight another war with their intimidating military exercises in the Korean seas. They are also trying their luck for a war between China and Taiwan.
The author took the standard western view that everyone’s interests will be threatened with the rise China and its growing military power. It rightly said that ‘Beijing is trying to shape a favourable balance of power in the region by preventing smaller nations from allying with each other or creating effective partnerships with larger powers like the US.’ What the writer conveniently ignored is the unfavourable balance of power against China in its own economic zone, that China was bullied, humiliated, and robbed of it territories by foreign powers because of its weakness in military power. What the writer did not say is that the US and the smaller countries have been encroaching into China’s territorial and economic rights in the surrounding seas. What he did not say were the numerous incidents of intimidation by the US and the smaller powers against China, including Japan, the Phillipines, Vietnam and now India.
What is so wrong about a strong China having a balance of power in its favour? What is so right about a balance of power in favour of the US?
Freedom of passage of the seas has never been compromised. The writer claimed a few incidents of China harassing other military ships but would not say how often the Chinese fishing boats were harassed and arrested by the smaller countries with the backing of the US.
Now that China is strong, it shall not continue to take bitter medicine from the US and the smaller littoral states. It is only natural and right for it to reclaim its territories that were robbed from her by gunpoint. And should these be the flashpoints for future wars, is it the fault of China or the fault of aggressors violating China’s territorial integrity and occupying Chinese land?
Should China remain docile and allow the US to dominate over her, dictate terms on her by bullying tactics, and allow the smaller countries to claim its land?
What is the source of Asian anxiety? The unfavourable balance that saw China being cowed, being bullied, with its islands being claimed by smaller countries giving way, and with China staking its rightful claims for their return? The wrongs of the last century against China would have to be righted, the excesses against China, the lands and islands taken away from her would have to be returned. Those countries that seized China’s land would have to act honourably to return what they took from China. Otherwise the tension and anxiety will be there. No country would allow their territories to be taken away from them at gunpoint.
Would Japan, Russia, India return their occupied land to China, and would the small Asean states stop their wild and baseless claims on Chinese islands and remove their own anxieties?
This is what the writer also said, ‘Not unlike Europe in the late 19th century, nations large and small are seeking to enmesh themselves in webs of protective relationships that in turn feed the insecurity of others. The result is the worsening of the risk cycle…’ Who is trying to enmesh the smaller countries in Asia with protective relationships and feeding on the insecurity of others all these years?
Asia if the American military presence is reduced. The author did not question that since the end of WW2, who was responsible for all the wars in Asia? Did anyone tell him it was the Americans that started all the wars? So, if America was the fire starter, would there be more wars or lesser wars with their reduced presence? They are still fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan and instigating the two Koreans to fight another war with their intimidating military exercises in the Korean seas. They are also trying their luck for a war between China and Taiwan.
The author took the standard western view that everyone’s interests will be threatened with the rise China and its growing military power. It rightly said that ‘Beijing is trying to shape a favourable balance of power in the region by preventing smaller nations from allying with each other or creating effective partnerships with larger powers like the US.’ What the writer conveniently ignored is the unfavourable balance of power against China in its own economic zone, that China was bullied, humiliated, and robbed of it territories by foreign powers because of its weakness in military power. What the writer did not say is that the US and the smaller countries have been encroaching into China’s territorial and economic rights in the surrounding seas. What he did not say were the numerous incidents of intimidation by the US and the smaller powers against China, including Japan, the Phillipines, Vietnam and now India.
What is so wrong about a strong China having a balance of power in its favour? What is so right about a balance of power in favour of the US?
Freedom of passage of the seas has never been compromised. The writer claimed a few incidents of China harassing other military ships but would not say how often the Chinese fishing boats were harassed and arrested by the smaller countries with the backing of the US.
Now that China is strong, it shall not continue to take bitter medicine from the US and the smaller littoral states. It is only natural and right for it to reclaim its territories that were robbed from her by gunpoint. And should these be the flashpoints for future wars, is it the fault of China or the fault of aggressors violating China’s territorial integrity and occupying Chinese land?
Should China remain docile and allow the US to dominate over her, dictate terms on her by bullying tactics, and allow the smaller countries to claim its land?
What is the source of Asian anxiety? The unfavourable balance that saw China being cowed, being bullied, with its islands being claimed by smaller countries giving way, and with China staking its rightful claims for their return? The wrongs of the last century against China would have to be righted, the excesses against China, the lands and islands taken away from her would have to be returned. Those countries that seized China’s land would have to act honourably to return what they took from China. Otherwise the tension and anxiety will be there. No country would allow their territories to be taken away from them at gunpoint.
Would Japan, Russia, India return their occupied land to China, and would the small Asean states stop their wild and baseless claims on Chinese islands and remove their own anxieties?
This is what the writer also said, ‘Not unlike Europe in the late 19th century, nations large and small are seeking to enmesh themselves in webs of protective relationships that in turn feed the insecurity of others. The result is the worsening of the risk cycle…’ Who is trying to enmesh the smaller countries in Asia with protective relationships and feeding on the insecurity of others all these years?
Stretching Cheryl Lee’s plea
Cheryl’s main contention is that mother should spend more time with their children. This is only natural, and nature makes it that way. The mother bears to baby and cares for the baby. In the process, there is that bond between mother and child, a natural instinct, that will keep them as mother and child for life. The added advantages are many, psychological and social, and the imparting of knowledge, values and human kindness. And there is this thing called mother’s love. I know, some claims that limited quality time can replace all the time a mother can provide for the child. Good if one believes in it.
Our society has been structured to become one that is more like an empty nest. The catchphrase of three generation families, or family is the core unit of our society, is only as good as farting, meant to be spoken but not taken seriously.
Our children are meant to fend for themselves like in the 50s and 60s. In those days poverty was compounded by ignorance and there were many children running around while their parents had to earn a living. But it was not that bad as it is today. Many mothers still stayed at home to look after the brood of children.
The society today is one that demands both parents to be working. Those ignoramuses who still argued that it is a matter of choice, that the govt did not force anyone to work or to buy HDB flats they cannot afford, please go and jump into the longkangs. The system has been designed to empty the incomes of the workers. HDB flats are prices to be affordable by two incomes for 30 years. Or like Patriot said, if you have $300, you must have the freedom to spend it in one meal or in 20 or 30 meals. This is not true. You are dictated by the govt on how that money is to be spent through their housing policies and mean testing in hospitals.
But that would not be too bad if the Ah Kongs and Ah Mahs could stay home to look after the children. After all we are encouraging a three tiered family under one roof. That is not to be. Ah Kong and Ah Mah now must work to earn their own pocket money, to have some dignity, to live life to the fullest, by cleaning tables and washing plates. Do the oldies have the energy to spend time loving their grandchildren after a hard day’s work?
The poor child will be left at home, alone or with the maids, through their growing up years. Don’t blame them if they grow up and become queer or devoid of human values and kindness. They are not brought up in a proper home despite the affluence in material well beings. They have their all the toys, computers, iphones and ipads but no mother or grandparents to be with them.
Is it a matter of choice? Please, don’t deceive yourself. It is how the society is being structured. It is the new value, the new normal, an empty nest is ok. Both parents and grandparents are expected to work till dead. Where got time for the precious children? Who says the children are precious? They are meant to be digits for the workforce. Our country need more children not because we love them, but we need them to ensure economic growth.
See the light?
Our society has been structured to become one that is more like an empty nest. The catchphrase of three generation families, or family is the core unit of our society, is only as good as farting, meant to be spoken but not taken seriously.
Our children are meant to fend for themselves like in the 50s and 60s. In those days poverty was compounded by ignorance and there were many children running around while their parents had to earn a living. But it was not that bad as it is today. Many mothers still stayed at home to look after the brood of children.
The society today is one that demands both parents to be working. Those ignoramuses who still argued that it is a matter of choice, that the govt did not force anyone to work or to buy HDB flats they cannot afford, please go and jump into the longkangs. The system has been designed to empty the incomes of the workers. HDB flats are prices to be affordable by two incomes for 30 years. Or like Patriot said, if you have $300, you must have the freedom to spend it in one meal or in 20 or 30 meals. This is not true. You are dictated by the govt on how that money is to be spent through their housing policies and mean testing in hospitals.
But that would not be too bad if the Ah Kongs and Ah Mahs could stay home to look after the children. After all we are encouraging a three tiered family under one roof. That is not to be. Ah Kong and Ah Mah now must work to earn their own pocket money, to have some dignity, to live life to the fullest, by cleaning tables and washing plates. Do the oldies have the energy to spend time loving their grandchildren after a hard day’s work?
The poor child will be left at home, alone or with the maids, through their growing up years. Don’t blame them if they grow up and become queer or devoid of human values and kindness. They are not brought up in a proper home despite the affluence in material well beings. They have their all the toys, computers, iphones and ipads but no mother or grandparents to be with them.
Is it a matter of choice? Please, don’t deceive yourself. It is how the society is being structured. It is the new value, the new normal, an empty nest is ok. Both parents and grandparents are expected to work till dead. Where got time for the precious children? Who says the children are precious? They are meant to be digits for the workforce. Our country need more children not because we love them, but we need them to ensure economic growth.
See the light?
10/26/2011
Happy Deepavali to everyone
Today is the festival of light and I am trying to see some light by browsing through the net. Yes there is light everywhere in a bright sunny morning. But I assure you, not many can see the light and still muddle around in darkness.
In one of the comments in my blog I saw some light. One said that our graduates are the new middle class, living in HDB flats that are beautifully furnished and very comfortable, maybe contented as well. This in a way is wisdom, contentment. Just be happy with what you have, make the best of what you have, and one can be as happy if not happier than those who have millions but worrying when the next million will come.
If Singaporeans can be easily contented with the good life of a HDB flat, there will be abundance everywhere. But there will be those who would want to own private properties, not one but many, and will never be contented. And there will also be those who earn millions, and scheming to get more millions. Some may think they are crazy or foolish. Some may say greed is good and that is how they get richer and richer.
In between these two extremes there are the average Singaporeans who just get on with life, day by day, sometimes happy sometimes not.
Looking at another angle about contentment is that it is the sign of regression. When people are too easily contented and are comfortable with the little they have, the drive to be better may suffer. Then someone may want to stick a spur on their backs to get them moving, for more achievements and more progress.
The part that I find uncomfortable is how people willingly accept their station in life when it could be much better. There was a time when even a secondary school graduate or drop out could aspire to own 5rm HDB flats, not that they were successful businessmen or entrepreneurs, but just skilled workers or taxi drivers. And if they were graduates, they could aspire and end up living in private properties.
Shall I rejoice when the graduates of today are contented to live in 4rm flats after investing hundreds of thousands for their education? Is this a good thing? Would anyone want to ask why this is the fate of our graduates, when they could live a better quality of life in the material sense? Have they surrendered and accepted that this is the best they could be in life as a graduate? Don’t they want the stars, don’t they want to live in private properties? Or they know that these things are beyond them.
Did they know that those things were quite attainable in yesteryears to the non graduates? How did our society be managed to such a state that people’s expectation has to go down, and be contented to have less, and think it is the norm? Tomorrow they will expect graduates to be counter salespersons, to drive taxis and to live in 3rm flats and take public transport to work. It is still quality living, but why like that?
Anyone see the light?
In one of the comments in my blog I saw some light. One said that our graduates are the new middle class, living in HDB flats that are beautifully furnished and very comfortable, maybe contented as well. This in a way is wisdom, contentment. Just be happy with what you have, make the best of what you have, and one can be as happy if not happier than those who have millions but worrying when the next million will come.
If Singaporeans can be easily contented with the good life of a HDB flat, there will be abundance everywhere. But there will be those who would want to own private properties, not one but many, and will never be contented. And there will also be those who earn millions, and scheming to get more millions. Some may think they are crazy or foolish. Some may say greed is good and that is how they get richer and richer.
In between these two extremes there are the average Singaporeans who just get on with life, day by day, sometimes happy sometimes not.
Looking at another angle about contentment is that it is the sign of regression. When people are too easily contented and are comfortable with the little they have, the drive to be better may suffer. Then someone may want to stick a spur on their backs to get them moving, for more achievements and more progress.
The part that I find uncomfortable is how people willingly accept their station in life when it could be much better. There was a time when even a secondary school graduate or drop out could aspire to own 5rm HDB flats, not that they were successful businessmen or entrepreneurs, but just skilled workers or taxi drivers. And if they were graduates, they could aspire and end up living in private properties.
Shall I rejoice when the graduates of today are contented to live in 4rm flats after investing hundreds of thousands for their education? Is this a good thing? Would anyone want to ask why this is the fate of our graduates, when they could live a better quality of life in the material sense? Have they surrendered and accepted that this is the best they could be in life as a graduate? Don’t they want the stars, don’t they want to live in private properties? Or they know that these things are beyond them.
Did they know that those things were quite attainable in yesteryears to the non graduates? How did our society be managed to such a state that people’s expectation has to go down, and be contented to have less, and think it is the norm? Tomorrow they will expect graduates to be counter salespersons, to drive taxis and to live in 3rm flats and take public transport to work. It is still quality living, but why like that?
Anyone see the light?
10/25/2011
The affordability plea
A stay at home mum, Cheryl Lee, wrote to the ST forum pleading to the govt to make housing more affordable. She is a graduate, a professional but is being forced to stay at home to look after children and work part time. She lamented the days when as a fresh graduate her starting salary was only $800. Though the salary of graduates has quadrupled, housing prices have gone up by at least 10 times. A 5 rm flat then was $35k but $450k today. Are we really better off?
To her this is not affordable. To the govt it is, very affordable. It depends on what is meant by affordable. We know, it shifted from one income and a 15 year mortgage to two incomes and 30 years of mortgage. Funny, why is this kind of arithmetic seen as being clever and even brilliant? And people in high places can tell the people straight in their faces that they are not lying, that it is affordable!
And this Cheryl Lee is making a plea, to make housing affordable in terms of one income so that mother can stay home and look after their precious children, and not leave them at the mercy of strangers that may be deranged or have very poor childcare skills, or even bad attitude or values.
The children are the most valuable gift of life, the blessings that no amount of money can trade for. (Bullshit. What children, only softies and losers are sentimental about children). But this gift of life is being neglected, put at risk, because of our enslavement to money and material goods. We are willing to sacrifice the bringing up of our children, good parental care and bonding, for money. Actually no. It is the first world and most envious social economic system that we have created, minus happiness and human warmth, that we believe is the best for us. This is the best system in the world, all glitters, all money and nothing else. This is what life and living is all about.
The plea by this stay at home mum that values her time and relationship with her children will go to the wilderness. She will be very lucky if they did not extend the mortgage to two generations or four incomes to service. To return to the days of one income and 15 years is a never, even if it is a one income for 30 years. That is our meaning of progress and world class standard of living. And it is good.
Did we compromise anything that is really valuable to life and living? No, money is everything. Material well being is everything. Children and their welfare are only lip service. Don’t believe in them. If we don’t have more head counts, we can buy them, import them, to feed our labour force. That is what children are meant for.
And the parents should continue to be in the workforce, to raise the GDP. That is the only thing that counts. And be prepared to work till one drops dead. That is our meaning of a well lived life, minus the irritating stuff of bringing up children. Keeping pets could be better option. But no, we still need children for our workforce.
To her this is not affordable. To the govt it is, very affordable. It depends on what is meant by affordable. We know, it shifted from one income and a 15 year mortgage to two incomes and 30 years of mortgage. Funny, why is this kind of arithmetic seen as being clever and even brilliant? And people in high places can tell the people straight in their faces that they are not lying, that it is affordable!
And this Cheryl Lee is making a plea, to make housing affordable in terms of one income so that mother can stay home and look after their precious children, and not leave them at the mercy of strangers that may be deranged or have very poor childcare skills, or even bad attitude or values.
The children are the most valuable gift of life, the blessings that no amount of money can trade for. (Bullshit. What children, only softies and losers are sentimental about children). But this gift of life is being neglected, put at risk, because of our enslavement to money and material goods. We are willing to sacrifice the bringing up of our children, good parental care and bonding, for money. Actually no. It is the first world and most envious social economic system that we have created, minus happiness and human warmth, that we believe is the best for us. This is the best system in the world, all glitters, all money and nothing else. This is what life and living is all about.
The plea by this stay at home mum that values her time and relationship with her children will go to the wilderness. She will be very lucky if they did not extend the mortgage to two generations or four incomes to service. To return to the days of one income and 15 years is a never, even if it is a one income for 30 years. That is our meaning of progress and world class standard of living. And it is good.
Did we compromise anything that is really valuable to life and living? No, money is everything. Material well being is everything. Children and their welfare are only lip service. Don’t believe in them. If we don’t have more head counts, we can buy them, import them, to feed our labour force. That is what children are meant for.
And the parents should continue to be in the workforce, to raise the GDP. That is the only thing that counts. And be prepared to work till one drops dead. That is our meaning of a well lived life, minus the irritating stuff of bringing up children. Keeping pets could be better option. But no, we still need children for our workforce.
Opposition to put forward constructive suggestions
‘The Govt has put forward its views, and the idea of a a debate must be that the Opposition puts forward constructive suggestions on how the Govt’s agenda and policies and programmes can be improved. K Shanmugam
Shanmugam was reported in yesterday’s Today paper to acknowledge opposition’s ‘role in finding improvements to govt policies and programmes.’ He also added that all good ideas must be accepted, that all MPs are people’s representatives and representing the people’s views and aspirations.
There was a robust debate in the Parliament’s first sitting. Has any view or suggestion been accepted by the govt? Were they constructive? Or were they not? Given the way they were summarily attacked and dismissed by the ruling party MPs and ministers, it looks like the opposition still has a lot of work to do, to come out with constructive suggestions. So far it seems that they have failed.
And though Shanmugam in the same breath claimed that the PAP did not have a monopoly of wisdom, the fact that nothing from the opposition were seen as constructive suggestions or worthy of wisdom, does it not imply that the monopoly of wisdom is still with the PAP? Yes, they don’t have the monopoly of wisdom, but the opposition has none. Every statement from the opposition will be attacked or rubbished.
Wow, I am going to flatter myself for the way I am arguing against myself. Everything I say is wrong and is also right.
Shanmugam was reported in yesterday’s Today paper to acknowledge opposition’s ‘role in finding improvements to govt policies and programmes.’ He also added that all good ideas must be accepted, that all MPs are people’s representatives and representing the people’s views and aspirations.
There was a robust debate in the Parliament’s first sitting. Has any view or suggestion been accepted by the govt? Were they constructive? Or were they not? Given the way they were summarily attacked and dismissed by the ruling party MPs and ministers, it looks like the opposition still has a lot of work to do, to come out with constructive suggestions. So far it seems that they have failed.
And though Shanmugam in the same breath claimed that the PAP did not have a monopoly of wisdom, the fact that nothing from the opposition were seen as constructive suggestions or worthy of wisdom, does it not imply that the monopoly of wisdom is still with the PAP? Yes, they don’t have the monopoly of wisdom, but the opposition has none. Every statement from the opposition will be attacked or rubbished.
Wow, I am going to flatter myself for the way I am arguing against myself. Everything I say is wrong and is also right.
10/24/2011
The storm over Sun Yat Sen
There are two camps taking sides for and against the Sun Yat Sen Museum. Those in favour could see the relevance of this revolutionary and his brief sojourn in the island. It was a time in our history when most of the residents were non citizens but migrants here only to earn a living and would probably return to their motherland. The Chinese were Chinese from China, Indians were Indians from India. The colonial masters would not grant them citizenship so easily as they owned the island. They would not be so silly to give citizenship to foreigners. They could come and work, but no citizenship. Citizenship is a valuable status and not to be given away freely. Only govt that do not think citizenship is of any great significance will give away citizenship freely. They did not understand that such an act is like giving the country away, to the new citizens.
The history of Sun Yat Sen tells us that citizenship is important and should not be treated foolishly as an economic good. The Chinese and Indians of those days fought for their countries because they were citizens of those countries. They identified and belonged to their motherland.
History has since taken a turn and many are now citizens of this island and no longer think of China and India as their motherland. Maybe we are revisiting this old phenomenon with new citizens thinking like the old Chinese and old Indians, and are still attached to their motherland. It would take several generations to change this mindset.
For those who were against the museum, they are also the descendants of the past, who now think that the past, especially foreigners, should not have too much of a place in our history. They forget that many of those in Bukit Brown were non citizens, some even with official titles from their motherland. Then again, they should deserve some honour and recognition.
We have a very short history and very few heroes and fables. We need to create more. We can’t just live on Hang Tuah alone. We need more histories of our past, more folk heroes to tell their stories to our young. Our past, our predecessors, should form part of our rich heritage. Maybe they were not in too eminent a position to be recognised. They could be the forefathers of our Kennedy’s and our Carnegies, our Tans and our Lees.
If Indonesians can feel proud of Obama just because he was there as a child, now a President of the US, there is no reason why we should treat the presence of Sun Yat Sen with lesser importance. He was here not as a nobody child but then already a revolutionary leader. Histories are made of these. Every little bits to form the tapestry of our history. We need to treasure our history, our past.
Without our past, we will all be silly Singaporeans, without roots, like duck weeds floating in the sea, thinking everything and everyone was great except our own kind and our own history.
The history of Sun Yat Sen tells us that citizenship is important and should not be treated foolishly as an economic good. The Chinese and Indians of those days fought for their countries because they were citizens of those countries. They identified and belonged to their motherland.
History has since taken a turn and many are now citizens of this island and no longer think of China and India as their motherland. Maybe we are revisiting this old phenomenon with new citizens thinking like the old Chinese and old Indians, and are still attached to their motherland. It would take several generations to change this mindset.
For those who were against the museum, they are also the descendants of the past, who now think that the past, especially foreigners, should not have too much of a place in our history. They forget that many of those in Bukit Brown were non citizens, some even with official titles from their motherland. Then again, they should deserve some honour and recognition.
We have a very short history and very few heroes and fables. We need to create more. We can’t just live on Hang Tuah alone. We need more histories of our past, more folk heroes to tell their stories to our young. Our past, our predecessors, should form part of our rich heritage. Maybe they were not in too eminent a position to be recognised. They could be the forefathers of our Kennedy’s and our Carnegies, our Tans and our Lees.
If Indonesians can feel proud of Obama just because he was there as a child, now a President of the US, there is no reason why we should treat the presence of Sun Yat Sen with lesser importance. He was here not as a nobody child but then already a revolutionary leader. Histories are made of these. Every little bits to form the tapestry of our history. We need to treasure our history, our past.
Without our past, we will all be silly Singaporeans, without roots, like duck weeds floating in the sea, thinking everything and everyone was great except our own kind and our own history.
Notable quote by Shanmugam
Govt has to acknowledge that segments of the population have been left behind. K. Shanmugam
This is the most profound statement that has come out from a minister for a long time. Why is this so important? It says that there are segments of the population that have been left behind. It also says that the govt is not acknowledging this fact. See how frightening things have become. People have been left behind, the govt knows, but refused or not going to admit it. Or maybe the govt really does not know, only Shanmugam knows. Which is which?
This is very similar to the claims that housing was not a problem and housing is affordable. That housing is a very serious problem that demands Boon Wan to work extra hard, and HDB to ram up building of HDB flats are remedies taken urgently to solve the housing problem. By why were people given the impression that there was no housing problem?
Then the affordable claim. Really, that housing is affordable, or people just have no choice but to buy and to work for it for the next 30 years? Would any minister wish to stand up and say it honestly that it is not affordable? Or would it just be like housing, was never a problem and just live with it?
I would like to ask again. Is it true that there are people who are left behind? And why is it that the govt must acknowledge that there are people who are left behind? What is all this about? Got problem pretends no problem or did not know there is a problem, or know got problem but did not want to admit there is a problem? Either way, this is a very serious situation to prompt Shanmugam to say such a thing. I think he tak boleh tahan oredy.
This is the most profound statement that has come out from a minister for a long time. Why is this so important? It says that there are segments of the population that have been left behind. It also says that the govt is not acknowledging this fact. See how frightening things have become. People have been left behind, the govt knows, but refused or not going to admit it. Or maybe the govt really does not know, only Shanmugam knows. Which is which?
This is very similar to the claims that housing was not a problem and housing is affordable. That housing is a very serious problem that demands Boon Wan to work extra hard, and HDB to ram up building of HDB flats are remedies taken urgently to solve the housing problem. By why were people given the impression that there was no housing problem?
Then the affordable claim. Really, that housing is affordable, or people just have no choice but to buy and to work for it for the next 30 years? Would any minister wish to stand up and say it honestly that it is not affordable? Or would it just be like housing, was never a problem and just live with it?
I would like to ask again. Is it true that there are people who are left behind? And why is it that the govt must acknowledge that there are people who are left behind? What is all this about? Got problem pretends no problem or did not know there is a problem, or know got problem but did not want to admit there is a problem? Either way, this is a very serious situation to prompt Shanmugam to say such a thing. I think he tak boleh tahan oredy.
Beware of a welfare state
Greece was the role model for Europe’s crisis of a welfare state gone wrong. And Greece is not the only welfare state in Europe. Many are and still looking after their people through public welfare and assistance. And they have done it for many years. Canada and the US also have their own variations of a welfare state.
A welfare state is costly to the country and public. It has to be carefully managed. And many of these countries have managed their welfare system pretty well. Singapore has defended its policy of welfare by the people, of the people and from the people’s own pocket for many years. Finally we have a Greece to prove that we are right in not having a welfare state.
But are those countries that are still practising welfarism finish or near finish? One swallow does not make a summer. For the fall of Greece, there are many that are successful and still doing ok.
What is important is how much to collect and how much to give. Giving $500 to $600 a month to the down and outs will not empty our state coffers so easily. If our reserves can afford to lose tens or hundreds of billions and still can afford to lose more, a little welfarism is not going to harm the reserves. No, no one is asking to kill the golden goose or for a drum stick, just some eggs.
Definitely if the welfare comes in the millions for each recipient it is going to be very dangerous. As more and more people continue to receive million or multi million dollar state welfare, then that is a different kind of welfarism that cannot be condoned. Do we practise state welfarism of any kind here?
A welfare state is costly to the country and public. It has to be carefully managed. And many of these countries have managed their welfare system pretty well. Singapore has defended its policy of welfare by the people, of the people and from the people’s own pocket for many years. Finally we have a Greece to prove that we are right in not having a welfare state.
But are those countries that are still practising welfarism finish or near finish? One swallow does not make a summer. For the fall of Greece, there are many that are successful and still doing ok.
What is important is how much to collect and how much to give. Giving $500 to $600 a month to the down and outs will not empty our state coffers so easily. If our reserves can afford to lose tens or hundreds of billions and still can afford to lose more, a little welfarism is not going to harm the reserves. No, no one is asking to kill the golden goose or for a drum stick, just some eggs.
Definitely if the welfare comes in the millions for each recipient it is going to be very dangerous. As more and more people continue to receive million or multi million dollar state welfare, then that is a different kind of welfarism that cannot be condoned. Do we practise state welfarism of any kind here?
10/23/2011
Of farting or alternative solution
Farting is a very easy and effortless thing to do. Everyone can do it and it does not cost anything. Looking for alternative solution to a national problem is a different matter altogether. A ministry may come out with a policy or decision to solve a problem, like the ERP. I am very sure the policy or decision does not come out like farting. It must have gone through many thinking heads, many discussions and reviews before the minister finally put his signature on it.
How many super talents would have been involved in the making of a policy or a solution? How many man hours would be needed to work on it. And the minister is not working for free either. The cost of a policy or decision is quite substantial. A consultant that is engaged to solve a problem too will charge his price based on the number of hours put in, the expertise needed and all other necessary costs involved.
Good solutions are costly, not like free fart. Anyone who asked for a free solution while he is getting paid to come out with a solution is going to get nothing more, nothing less, except farting. Why should anyone offer free solution to another who is paid handsomely to do the job but not doing it, and put in great effort, man hours and expenses for a serious alternative solution? Unless of course the person is farting, which does not require much effort and of not much value.
Anyone got any suggestions?
How many super talents would have been involved in the making of a policy or a solution? How many man hours would be needed to work on it. And the minister is not working for free either. The cost of a policy or decision is quite substantial. A consultant that is engaged to solve a problem too will charge his price based on the number of hours put in, the expertise needed and all other necessary costs involved.
Good solutions are costly, not like free fart. Anyone who asked for a free solution while he is getting paid to come out with a solution is going to get nothing more, nothing less, except farting. Why should anyone offer free solution to another who is paid handsomely to do the job but not doing it, and put in great effort, man hours and expenses for a serious alternative solution? Unless of course the person is farting, which does not require much effort and of not much value.
Anyone got any suggestions?
10/22/2011
Missed opportunity in Parliament
As the final curtain fell in Parliament’s first session, the big guns of the two camps took their final stand. PAP drew its best from its most eloquent and flowery speaker, Swee Say, to do his final take on the opposition’s position.
The final issue came down to be the CBF workers versus the CBF ministers, the former stands for cheaper, better and faster versus the latter version of costlier, betterer and fasterer ministers. While Swee Say coined the infamous CBF term for the Singapore workers, nothing of the like was reflected in the minister’s pay, which keeps going higher and higher. This has led to the public’s perception that the ministers were not as sacrificing as they claimed to be, but more self serving and looking only after their own gaji rather than the people.
This, according to Swee Say, was shocking. He rebutted the accusation, that ministers were working their guts out for the interests of the people, all the time thinking for the people’s welfare. If this is true, then the public must have grossly mistaken. If this is not true, then it is very frightening. Whatever, Swee Say said he was lost for words, in another word dumbfounded.
Actually he could lead by example as leaders instead of politicians, and for telling the workers to be CBF, ministers too can be CBF with the same meaning, cheaper, better and faster. For that to be believeable, he could announced that ministers would take a 50% pay cut to show to the people that they were really not self serving, working for self interest, but working for the people.
That kind of statement would be as good as giving Low Thia Khiang a tight slap for bringing the public’s negative perception into Parliament, and will straight away be proven wrong.
Well, Parliament will be in recess and it must be the biggest opportunity missed by Swee Say to score a winning goal for the PAP. And no matter how shock or dumbfounded he claimed to be, the accusation still stands and he did nothing to dispute it. The public’s perception of self serving ministers is still hanging there, waiting to be proven wrong, and to be taken down.
I am equally dumbfounded.
The final issue came down to be the CBF workers versus the CBF ministers, the former stands for cheaper, better and faster versus the latter version of costlier, betterer and fasterer ministers. While Swee Say coined the infamous CBF term for the Singapore workers, nothing of the like was reflected in the minister’s pay, which keeps going higher and higher. This has led to the public’s perception that the ministers were not as sacrificing as they claimed to be, but more self serving and looking only after their own gaji rather than the people.
This, according to Swee Say, was shocking. He rebutted the accusation, that ministers were working their guts out for the interests of the people, all the time thinking for the people’s welfare. If this is true, then the public must have grossly mistaken. If this is not true, then it is very frightening. Whatever, Swee Say said he was lost for words, in another word dumbfounded.
Actually he could lead by example as leaders instead of politicians, and for telling the workers to be CBF, ministers too can be CBF with the same meaning, cheaper, better and faster. For that to be believeable, he could announced that ministers would take a 50% pay cut to show to the people that they were really not self serving, working for self interest, but working for the people.
That kind of statement would be as good as giving Low Thia Khiang a tight slap for bringing the public’s negative perception into Parliament, and will straight away be proven wrong.
Well, Parliament will be in recess and it must be the biggest opportunity missed by Swee Say to score a winning goal for the PAP. And no matter how shock or dumbfounded he claimed to be, the accusation still stands and he did nothing to dispute it. The public’s perception of self serving ministers is still hanging there, waiting to be proven wrong, and to be taken down.
I am equally dumbfounded.
10/21/2011
Is MSM controlled by the govt?
"Do you believe that the mainstream media is controlled, and is that why you're putting forward the proposal for these acts," asked Tanjong Pagar MP Indranee Rajah.
Indranee was asking Pritam Singh if he believes that the MSM is under the control of the govt. I think it is a fair question. Shanmugam also wanted to know and asked Pritam to answer, yes or no. Unfortunately Pritam was kind of half in and half out.
I think it is important that everyone should answer this question with a yes and no, including Indranee and Shanmugam.
I will take the first step by answering No. Just feel free to disagree with me. This is not a right or wrong answer. Just what you think. But if one’s answer is No, no further question. If one answers Yes, please explain.
Indranee was asking Pritam Singh if he believes that the MSM is under the control of the govt. I think it is a fair question. Shanmugam also wanted to know and asked Pritam to answer, yes or no. Unfortunately Pritam was kind of half in and half out.
I think it is important that everyone should answer this question with a yes and no, including Indranee and Shanmugam.
I will take the first step by answering No. Just feel free to disagree with me. This is not a right or wrong answer. Just what you think. But if one’s answer is No, no further question. If one answers Yes, please explain.
Old habits die hard
Hsien Loong has made several encouraging motherhood statements about how his govt is going forward, to be more listening, more flexible, more caring, and more inclusive. Putting all these together we can expect a more gracious govt, less purgnacious, more accommodating, more listening and a better rapport with the people. The govt wants to get closer to the people, to be more human like than god like, to admit mistakes and go forward together, no one being left out or discriminated by govt policies.
So would there be less policing of the critics of govt policies, a really lighter touch, less bickering in parliament for the sake of bickering, like you say it hor, I say you said this, be brave to admit it lah, then see what will happen? See, I challenge him and he lost. I clever right?
Would the civil servants and govt officers be less politically sensitive in the conduct of their daily affairs, and get on with the more serious stuff of the affairs of the state, regardless of political hue? Or would politicians still behave like little boys and girls trying to score political points at the slightest opportunity instead of using the Parliament as a platform to discuss and improve governance of the people and country?
Watching the clips on what was happening in Parliament, and reading what was being reported, I cannot see anything has changed for the better.
So would there be less policing of the critics of govt policies, a really lighter touch, less bickering in parliament for the sake of bickering, like you say it hor, I say you said this, be brave to admit it lah, then see what will happen? See, I challenge him and he lost. I clever right?
Would the civil servants and govt officers be less politically sensitive in the conduct of their daily affairs, and get on with the more serious stuff of the affairs of the state, regardless of political hue? Or would politicians still behave like little boys and girls trying to score political points at the slightest opportunity instead of using the Parliament as a platform to discuss and improve governance of the people and country?
Watching the clips on what was happening in Parliament, and reading what was being reported, I cannot see anything has changed for the better.
The killing of a dictator
I have mixed feelings over the killing of Muammar Gaddafi. He is the second Arab dictator to be killed by foreign forces. In the case of Saddam Hussein, it was a false excuse of possession of WMD that George Bush used to kill him. By the way, possession of WMD is not a crime under international law. The US possesses the most WMD. It was the added charge that it threatened the US security. This was the logic the evil Empire used to invade another country. And the world looked on helplessly.
Now Gaddafi is also killed by Nato bombing. And the UN only sanctioned Nato to prevent Gaddafi from using his air force to strike the resistance. The UN never authorize the killing of Gaddafi or for Nato to have a free hand in hitting anything it wants. Yes weakness is sexy and inviting, to be raped and killed.
In the killing of both dictators, are they justified? Should the killers be brought to face war crimes?
There is no doubt that both were cruel dictators that abused their powers and killed many of their own people. No doubt that many of their people hated the two dictators who ruled by the sword. Now they have both met their due justice, lived by the sword, killed by the sword.
The case for invasion of Iraq was totally an American design and if put to trial would have found America guilty in all counts, for invading a faraway country under false excuses and nonsensical reasoning that Iraq is a threat to America. But the evil Empire is calling the shot of the day and can get away with anything.
The killing of Gaddafi is equally unjustified by Nato and indefensible. It is another naked foreign aggression against a weaker country.
On the other hand, without the foreign aggression and intervention, the two dictators would continue to rule and rubbish their own people. The question is whether the Libyans and Iraqis were willing to be ruled by these dictators. Then again, some would and some would not. Who then should decide whether they should rule their own people? Should foreign powers be allowed to unilaterally decide the fate of other nations, to the extent of invasion and killing their unpopular and cruel dictators?
I thought the call should be with the Libyans and the Iraqis. They should decide the fate of their own people and country. But they could not do a thing without foreign assistance. So you have two evil dictators that could not be removed by their own people. And foreign powers decided that they should go in and do the killing.
I have mixed feelings as there are goodness and evil in all the actions and combatants.
Now Gaddafi is also killed by Nato bombing. And the UN only sanctioned Nato to prevent Gaddafi from using his air force to strike the resistance. The UN never authorize the killing of Gaddafi or for Nato to have a free hand in hitting anything it wants. Yes weakness is sexy and inviting, to be raped and killed.
In the killing of both dictators, are they justified? Should the killers be brought to face war crimes?
There is no doubt that both were cruel dictators that abused their powers and killed many of their own people. No doubt that many of their people hated the two dictators who ruled by the sword. Now they have both met their due justice, lived by the sword, killed by the sword.
The case for invasion of Iraq was totally an American design and if put to trial would have found America guilty in all counts, for invading a faraway country under false excuses and nonsensical reasoning that Iraq is a threat to America. But the evil Empire is calling the shot of the day and can get away with anything.
The killing of Gaddafi is equally unjustified by Nato and indefensible. It is another naked foreign aggression against a weaker country.
On the other hand, without the foreign aggression and intervention, the two dictators would continue to rule and rubbish their own people. The question is whether the Libyans and Iraqis were willing to be ruled by these dictators. Then again, some would and some would not. Who then should decide whether they should rule their own people? Should foreign powers be allowed to unilaterally decide the fate of other nations, to the extent of invasion and killing their unpopular and cruel dictators?
I thought the call should be with the Libyans and the Iraqis. They should decide the fate of their own people and country. But they could not do a thing without foreign assistance. So you have two evil dictators that could not be removed by their own people. And foreign powers decided that they should go in and do the killing.
I have mixed feelings as there are goodness and evil in all the actions and combatants.
10/20/2011
Weakness is sexy and inviting
The whole world was raped by the western powers for several centuries. Many were colonized and ruled by the barrel of the gun. China too was raped by the western powers, including Japan. It was almost colonized like the rest of Asia and Africa. And Japan bluntly told China that it was her fault for being weak. It invited aggression upon itself.
Today China is the second most powerful country, militarily and economically. But it is still being bullied by small little countries. It deserved to be bullied because it appears to be weak. It may be a super power, but it fears to use its power. So the littoral countries like Vietnam and the Phillipines always take potshots at China. Many of its fishing boats and fishermen were arrested by these two countries.
Yesterday a Phillipines naval craft rammed into another Chinese fishing boat towing several other smaller boats. And the Phillipines Govt conveniently claimed that it was an accident. So what is China going to do about it? If China continues its weak foreign policies it will only attract these pests to irritate her more often.
Pests need a swapper to swap them off. China must demand an apology and full compensation from the Phillipines. If it fails to do so, the Phillipines will conveniently have more accidents ramming Chinese fishing boats. And it will encourage Vietnam and other little countries to be adventurous. Even Sinkies will think it is okay to slam China.
Now India is going to send its aircraft carrier into the South China Sea to protect its oil drilling adventure in islands that the Chinese claimed to be theirs. The weak front that the Chinese is putting up is inviting more trouble from weak states. It cannot go on adopting this policy. It must stand up and kick asses. That is the only language that pesky states will understand. And only then will they stay clear of irritating China.
There is no other way. A weak foreign policy will only invite more trouble for China. China must learn from its past weakness and must not appear weak to small countries. Like it or not, whether China kick asses or not, the western world is going to brand it as a bully. It might as well live with it and whack the daylight out of these little pests that think they can shit on China’s head.
Today China is the second most powerful country, militarily and economically. But it is still being bullied by small little countries. It deserved to be bullied because it appears to be weak. It may be a super power, but it fears to use its power. So the littoral countries like Vietnam and the Phillipines always take potshots at China. Many of its fishing boats and fishermen were arrested by these two countries.
Yesterday a Phillipines naval craft rammed into another Chinese fishing boat towing several other smaller boats. And the Phillipines Govt conveniently claimed that it was an accident. So what is China going to do about it? If China continues its weak foreign policies it will only attract these pests to irritate her more often.
Pests need a swapper to swap them off. China must demand an apology and full compensation from the Phillipines. If it fails to do so, the Phillipines will conveniently have more accidents ramming Chinese fishing boats. And it will encourage Vietnam and other little countries to be adventurous. Even Sinkies will think it is okay to slam China.
Now India is going to send its aircraft carrier into the South China Sea to protect its oil drilling adventure in islands that the Chinese claimed to be theirs. The weak front that the Chinese is putting up is inviting more trouble from weak states. It cannot go on adopting this policy. It must stand up and kick asses. That is the only language that pesky states will understand. And only then will they stay clear of irritating China.
There is no other way. A weak foreign policy will only invite more trouble for China. China must learn from its past weakness and must not appear weak to small countries. Like it or not, whether China kick asses or not, the western world is going to brand it as a bully. It might as well live with it and whack the daylight out of these little pests that think they can shit on China’s head.
A good idea from Warren Buffett
Applicable to all countries....
Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:
"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election".
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure. Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.
_*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*_
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.
Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Don't you think it's time?
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!
If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete.
You are one of my 20+ - Please keep it going, and thanks.
Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:
"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election".
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure. Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.
_*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*_
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.
Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Don't you think it's time?
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!
If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete.
You are one of my 20+ - Please keep it going, and thanks.
The worrisome things said by opposition MPs
The opposition MPs are trying to make an impact in Parliament by making recommendations on what could and should be done. The intention is good, but the approach is flawed from the word go. How could they think that they can teach the ruling party how to do their job? How could they think that they are more talented than the super talents and have better solutions? How could the super talents accept their suggestions? Would it make them look bad if they do? See the problem?
And the reactions and replies by the ruling party MPs are quite expected. No need to guess. Every suggestion will be met by opposition or cold water. The more they try to suggest, the more the suggestions will be thrown out. For instance Yaw Shin Leong was asking the govt to place Singaporeans first against foreign talents in employment opportunities.
What he could have done and get a better result is to propose that foreign talents should be treated better than Singaporeans. Propose that more trainings and funds be allocated to train foreign workers and foreign talents. Then let them attack his suggestion by calling him silly and tell him that the govt will not do things to favour foreign talents and workers. And instead they will proudly pronounce that the govt will allocate more funds and resources to put Singaporeans first.
It is all about strategizing to achieve the same objectives. Appear to be pushing right but really wanting to go left. When the reaction from the other side is expected and predictable, then they should just play the game according to how it is being played.
To try to teach the super talents and tell the super talents how to do their jobs is a wrong way to go.
And the reactions and replies by the ruling party MPs are quite expected. No need to guess. Every suggestion will be met by opposition or cold water. The more they try to suggest, the more the suggestions will be thrown out. For instance Yaw Shin Leong was asking the govt to place Singaporeans first against foreign talents in employment opportunities.
What he could have done and get a better result is to propose that foreign talents should be treated better than Singaporeans. Propose that more trainings and funds be allocated to train foreign workers and foreign talents. Then let them attack his suggestion by calling him silly and tell him that the govt will not do things to favour foreign talents and workers. And instead they will proudly pronounce that the govt will allocate more funds and resources to put Singaporeans first.
It is all about strategizing to achieve the same objectives. Appear to be pushing right but really wanting to go left. When the reaction from the other side is expected and predictable, then they should just play the game according to how it is being played.
To try to teach the super talents and tell the super talents how to do their jobs is a wrong way to go.
Why need to help first timers?
Why the need to help first timers buy a HDB flat? Why the need to help newly weds to buy their first flat? What is the problem? Why is housing such a complex problem?
When the big fire flattened Bukit Ho Swee, it was a serious problem. Thousands of families were homeless. That was compounded by the thousands living in cubicles, squatters, attap and zinc huts across the whole island. It was a huge problem. But it was solved quite easily. And the only thing that the govt needed to do was to build and build and build until everyone had his flat. Nothing complicated at all. Big problem simple solution.
Then someone screamed that there was a huge stock of unsold flats. And some statisticians started banging the computers and claimed that so many billions of dollars were stuck because of unsold flats. So it was a big problem. Really? Or was it a big mistake?
It was a big mistake alright, but not because of over building. When one joker was panicking that so much money were tied down and furiously trying to get rid of the unsold flats, another joker was happily bringing plane loads of new migrants into the country. And they all needed housing. Obviously the two jokers were not on talking terms and it ended up in a hilarious situation when all the unsold flats were gone in no time, and now a bigger shortage problem.
And this shortage seems so complex that even our super talents could not resolve it and needed many years to hope of unwinding the mess. Could anyone believe that the housing problem today is worst than in the Bukit Ho Swee days?
The problem is so complex, very true. It is like travelling to town from Yishun. It was quite a straight forward thing. People used to walk or cycle to get to town, or to take a bus. Today it is a very complex problem. They need to computate which is the shortest route, the fastest route, the cheapest route. They have to check the number of ERPs, their operating hours and how much each will cost. They need to weigh whether it is better to take a bus or a train, or drive. They need to time when to leave the house, how late to stay in the office.
Why is life so complicated and so complex? Still didn’t get it? Just add more rules and regulations, add more obstacles and fees to get from point A to point B. And bring in more people into the island to keep the GDP growing. Then we have a very serious and complex problem that needs very talented super talents to try to unwind the mess. And because the problem is so messy, so complicated, you need to pay the super talents higher salaries to work on them.
In the times of Bukit Ho Swee, working class couple getting married only need to rent a room. Today, there are a thousand and one regulations and conditions before they can buy a HDB flat. And they are expected to wait for 3 or 4 years for a flat. And some can buy, some cannot buy, some dunno can or cannot buy. It sure is a very complex issue. It is like creating a maze and then help the people to navigate through it and claim credit. Why don’t they just remove the maze? KNN.
When the big fire flattened Bukit Ho Swee, it was a serious problem. Thousands of families were homeless. That was compounded by the thousands living in cubicles, squatters, attap and zinc huts across the whole island. It was a huge problem. But it was solved quite easily. And the only thing that the govt needed to do was to build and build and build until everyone had his flat. Nothing complicated at all. Big problem simple solution.
Then someone screamed that there was a huge stock of unsold flats. And some statisticians started banging the computers and claimed that so many billions of dollars were stuck because of unsold flats. So it was a big problem. Really? Or was it a big mistake?
It was a big mistake alright, but not because of over building. When one joker was panicking that so much money were tied down and furiously trying to get rid of the unsold flats, another joker was happily bringing plane loads of new migrants into the country. And they all needed housing. Obviously the two jokers were not on talking terms and it ended up in a hilarious situation when all the unsold flats were gone in no time, and now a bigger shortage problem.
And this shortage seems so complex that even our super talents could not resolve it and needed many years to hope of unwinding the mess. Could anyone believe that the housing problem today is worst than in the Bukit Ho Swee days?
The problem is so complex, very true. It is like travelling to town from Yishun. It was quite a straight forward thing. People used to walk or cycle to get to town, or to take a bus. Today it is a very complex problem. They need to computate which is the shortest route, the fastest route, the cheapest route. They have to check the number of ERPs, their operating hours and how much each will cost. They need to weigh whether it is better to take a bus or a train, or drive. They need to time when to leave the house, how late to stay in the office.
Why is life so complicated and so complex? Still didn’t get it? Just add more rules and regulations, add more obstacles and fees to get from point A to point B. And bring in more people into the island to keep the GDP growing. Then we have a very serious and complex problem that needs very talented super talents to try to unwind the mess. And because the problem is so messy, so complicated, you need to pay the super talents higher salaries to work on them.
In the times of Bukit Ho Swee, working class couple getting married only need to rent a room. Today, there are a thousand and one regulations and conditions before they can buy a HDB flat. And they are expected to wait for 3 or 4 years for a flat. And some can buy, some cannot buy, some dunno can or cannot buy. It sure is a very complex issue. It is like creating a maze and then help the people to navigate through it and claim credit. Why don’t they just remove the maze? KNN.
10/19/2011
Are opposition parties enemies of the state?
This issue has cropped up with Chen Show Mao telling the ruling govt that they are just providing an alternative voice, maybe a govt in waiting, and not the enemy of the state. For decades, the political opposition has been tacitly seen or projected as enemies of the state with many ended up in jail or humiliated. In earlier days there were the communist inspired doctrine of armed revolution to topple legitimate govt and practicing the art of statecraft is a matter of life and death. Has anything changed? Are the opposition parties still being seen as enemies of the state?
Who are looking at opposition parties as enemies of the state or enemies of the people? Is such a label valid and deserving? Political parties naturally see each other as opponents in the political contest for the right to govern a country. The mature western polities have accepted and are willing to live with multi parties and no longer see each other as enemies. In third world polities, the immaturity and ruthlessness of their political leaders will conveniently put opposition party members behind bars as enemies of the parties but dressed up as enemies of the people and the state. And they have full control of all the govt machinery, including civil servants, the military and the police to be their hatchet men, to do the dirty works for them. The motivations of their civil servants, the military, police and grassroots organizations are varied. What is fearful and frightening is that these people refused to think, refused to differentiate between right and wrong, or for self interests, willingly do harm to fellow citizens simply because the ruling govt made them to do it.
The unthinking civil servants and uniformed officers could unintentionally or intentionally become accomplices in oppressing the people, the opposition parties, as if they are the enemies of the state. In the course of political development and the maturing of statehood, civil servants and uniformed officers tend to distance themselves from becoming cronies of unscrupulous political leaders and refuse to have innocent blood tainting their hands. The war crime trial in Phnom Penh against Khmer Rouge leaders is a living example of how civil servants went about killing fellow citizens without questioning their conscience.
The maturity of statehood, of arriving at the first world of civilized nations can be measured by such developments. Civil servants and uniformed officers must develop an independent mindset, and not be compromised into oppressing citizens on grounds of political differences. It is also unbecoming for govts to compromise civil servants and uniformed officers by expecting them to conduct political inquisition or persecution of the people.
In mature polities, such things are now passé. Civil servants and uniformed officers are well educated, sophisticated and know their rights and duties as public officers of the state and not officers of a ruling party. They are public servants paid by public money to serve the people and the state, not to serve any political party. When such a state is arrived, statehood has reached manhood.
And political parties, including dissenting and diversed views and voices will be accommodated as part and parcel of, or family, of the polity. The new term for such a development is inclusiveness. They are not enemies of the state but patriots wanting to make the country a better place for all. The western states are quite comfortable at this level of their political development.
Are we in the same happy state of affair? Can we claim that we are a mature polity where politics and affairs of the state are quite distinct to everyone?
Who are looking at opposition parties as enemies of the state or enemies of the people? Is such a label valid and deserving? Political parties naturally see each other as opponents in the political contest for the right to govern a country. The mature western polities have accepted and are willing to live with multi parties and no longer see each other as enemies. In third world polities, the immaturity and ruthlessness of their political leaders will conveniently put opposition party members behind bars as enemies of the parties but dressed up as enemies of the people and the state. And they have full control of all the govt machinery, including civil servants, the military and the police to be their hatchet men, to do the dirty works for them. The motivations of their civil servants, the military, police and grassroots organizations are varied. What is fearful and frightening is that these people refused to think, refused to differentiate between right and wrong, or for self interests, willingly do harm to fellow citizens simply because the ruling govt made them to do it.
The unthinking civil servants and uniformed officers could unintentionally or intentionally become accomplices in oppressing the people, the opposition parties, as if they are the enemies of the state. In the course of political development and the maturing of statehood, civil servants and uniformed officers tend to distance themselves from becoming cronies of unscrupulous political leaders and refuse to have innocent blood tainting their hands. The war crime trial in Phnom Penh against Khmer Rouge leaders is a living example of how civil servants went about killing fellow citizens without questioning their conscience.
The maturity of statehood, of arriving at the first world of civilized nations can be measured by such developments. Civil servants and uniformed officers must develop an independent mindset, and not be compromised into oppressing citizens on grounds of political differences. It is also unbecoming for govts to compromise civil servants and uniformed officers by expecting them to conduct political inquisition or persecution of the people.
In mature polities, such things are now passé. Civil servants and uniformed officers are well educated, sophisticated and know their rights and duties as public officers of the state and not officers of a ruling party. They are public servants paid by public money to serve the people and the state, not to serve any political party. When such a state is arrived, statehood has reached manhood.
And political parties, including dissenting and diversed views and voices will be accommodated as part and parcel of, or family, of the polity. The new term for such a development is inclusiveness. They are not enemies of the state but patriots wanting to make the country a better place for all. The western states are quite comfortable at this level of their political development.
Are we in the same happy state of affair? Can we claim that we are a mature polity where politics and affairs of the state are quite distinct to everyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)