Money can literally buy anything, even happiness. But some will disagree. There are some kinds of happiness that cannot be bought by money. At the national level, states also think that with money they can buy anything. So Singapore is going to buy power with its money. Nobody can resist a willing customer with loads of money to want to buy power from them.
While we tend to get carried away with our greatness and the large coffers we have, let us remind ourselves that our money cannot buy everything. Maybe can, if we are going to pay all kinds or ridiculous price, like a few billions to get our football team to the World Cup. But no need to look that far. Our money cannot even buy cheap commodities like sand and water from our neighbouring countries. And these are abundant resources, while water will just run into the sea if not sold to us. No, some will not just sell you anything for money. Just because we have this mentality that we can sell everything away to anyone, even strategic resources, it does not work the other way.
We are buying gas from Indonesia. And recently there were calls to stop selling gas to us from the Indonesians. And with oil or energy becoming rarer, and more strategic, the possibility of countries refusing to sell to us or at a prohibitive price will be a matter of time. It will come, sooner or later, when the earth’s population hits 15b or when our population hits 10b and energy is vital to our continued growth. So will be water and gas.
As we grow bigger and consume more, we need more energy and more water. Our reservoirs will not be enough unless we convert Orchard Road into another reservoir. What all these mean is that we will get ourselves into a thick bind. We have just extricated ourselves from the water vice grip and free ourselves from being dependent on external water supply. Our growth strategy will bring us back to a more precarious situation, whereby we will be more dependent on water again, plus energy and gas. And we could end up being held ransom once more.
We may have the money, not counting that it can run out, but not everyone is going to sell strategic resources to us just for money. Can our money buy everything we want and we need?
11/02/2011
11/01/2011
Great opportunities for Iskandar
Today’s ST is hinting that the Medisave, currently with a minimum sum of $41k will not be enough. What it means, very likely, is that Medisave will have to go up to $100k or more. An admission for a major operation would easily cost a few hundred thousands. So what is $41k?
The ridiculous cost of medical fees here is running out of control. The average Singaporeans will never have enough to pay for one admission to a hospital. Keep raising Medisave minimum sum is like raising COEs or ERP charges. It is a fictitious solution that Ah Long also knows. There must be a cheaper alternative.
The problems of Singapore present great opportunities for Malaysia in Iskandar Economic Zone. If only Iskandar can offer an equivalent medical facility and standard and charging in ringgits, a large portion of Singaporeans needing medical care and major ops will have no choice but be in Iskandar. And this is high skill services which the Malaysian govt will be most interested to set up to compete with Singapore. If Malaysia can capitalize on their comparative advantage, lay down the red carpet, make immigration and travelling efficient and smooth, there is no stopping Singaporeans going over, which means a sophisticated medical hub in the making.
But they must make their policies clear and not be confused and dragged down by parochial politickings. It is likely that political tension can be drummed up, like Singaporeans clogging up their roads, Singaporeans raising the cost of living, Singaporeans buying up the houses, Singaporeans taking advantage of cheaper medical services in Iskandar, etc etc.
When Iskandar is successful, there will be more foreign investments and presence in Iskandar and Johore and competing for goods and services. Is that something that the Malaysian govt wants and can live with? If that is what they want and will not be pressurized by domestic politics, a medical hub is the way to go.
The average Singaporeans will definitely welcome such an alternative. And there could be many alternatives that the Malaysian govt can provide, cheaper and even better than Singapore, if they are clear in what they want.
The ridiculous cost of medical fees here is running out of control. The average Singaporeans will never have enough to pay for one admission to a hospital. Keep raising Medisave minimum sum is like raising COEs or ERP charges. It is a fictitious solution that Ah Long also knows. There must be a cheaper alternative.
The problems of Singapore present great opportunities for Malaysia in Iskandar Economic Zone. If only Iskandar can offer an equivalent medical facility and standard and charging in ringgits, a large portion of Singaporeans needing medical care and major ops will have no choice but be in Iskandar. And this is high skill services which the Malaysian govt will be most interested to set up to compete with Singapore. If Malaysia can capitalize on their comparative advantage, lay down the red carpet, make immigration and travelling efficient and smooth, there is no stopping Singaporeans going over, which means a sophisticated medical hub in the making.
But they must make their policies clear and not be confused and dragged down by parochial politickings. It is likely that political tension can be drummed up, like Singaporeans clogging up their roads, Singaporeans raising the cost of living, Singaporeans buying up the houses, Singaporeans taking advantage of cheaper medical services in Iskandar, etc etc.
When Iskandar is successful, there will be more foreign investments and presence in Iskandar and Johore and competing for goods and services. Is that something that the Malaysian govt wants and can live with? If that is what they want and will not be pressurized by domestic politics, a medical hub is the way to go.
The average Singaporeans will definitely welcome such an alternative. And there could be many alternatives that the Malaysian govt can provide, cheaper and even better than Singapore, if they are clear in what they want.
60 years of rebuilding a country and nation
It took 60 years for China to rebuild a broken up country that was bankrupt of everything. It started from scratch in 1949, a war torn country, bankrupt in the treasury through payments of war reparations to the imperial powers of the West and Japan, bankrupt of intellectuals and ideas, a backward economy that was agriculture based, with no industries in the modern sense of the time. The whole govt institution and infrastructure had to be rebuilt with an empty state coffer.
Up till 1978 when Deng was returned to power, the country was experimenting with agrarian and industrial revolution on its own, with little foreign aid or assistance. The Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the Korean War, the Vietnam war, were very costly and drained further the limited resources of a third world nation.
It’s rightful place in the United Nation was occupied by Taiwan, calling itself the Republic of China and representing greater China on both sides of the causeway. Of course its legitimacy was only as legitimate as the support of the Americans. The farce of ROC representing the whole of China came to an end when the Third World countries stood against the Americans and voted in the PRC to its rightful place in the family of nations. The pretender, ROC, was booted out of the UN.
The path back to nationhood was never easy with many countries still living under the influence of Western literature and Western truth, that China was a belligerent, expansionist and aggressive emerging power. This continues till today, without China fighting a war except for self defence, with no Chinese occupation troops in any foreign land, while its territories are claimed and occupied by foreign powers. Hongkong and Macau were returned at the end of the 20th Century. Many of China’s territories are still in foreign hands. And China continues to endure the embarrassment and indignity of not being able to reclaim its lost land, taken away when it was weak and helpless. How’s that of an expansionist and unreasonable power?
Today, 60 years later, even small little countries are making claims to Chinese territories in the South China Seas, with the tacit support of the Americans. While China is still relatively weaker than the US, but immensely more powerful than all the Southeast Asian countries combined, China adopts a position of weakness in its foreign policies, encouraging these small countries to embolden their claims, even attacking and capturing Chinese ships in the high seas or in Chinese territories.
China’s failure in warding off such adventurism and irritating claims from the small countries in a way was due to its eclipse and years of living in the shadow of the big powers. It does no wish to engage in warfare, and chose a policy of appeasement, of friendship and accommodation. Any little acts of assertiveness for its rights and territorial integrity would be blown up as vindications of an expansionist and fearsome power.
The literature and propaganda of an expansionist and hostile China have been perpetuating and influencing the minds of the Asian and Southeast Asian states, and the world for decades. And all these years China was a struggling nation, poor and weak both economically and militarily. The image has set in and difficult to change no matter what China did. No matter how defensive is China’s stance, it will not change anything. In fact the weakness of the Chinese stance has created more problems for China than if China has taken a tougher stand. When it did in the Korean War, again the border intrusions by India and Vietnam, it was cast as the aggressor by the West. And the world believed in those stories.
In short, notwithstanding China’s olive branch, it will always be portrayed and viewed in distrust. The other countries believe that they will be better under Pax Americana, a known devil.
While China did not have much choice in the past to risk a devastating war with the Americans, and be flattened into the oblivion, the situation is now different. As much as America is many times more able to turn again into the stone age, China could do likewise to America. It will be a no winner war if the two super powers collide.
Ruling out this possibility, as long as both countries avoided such an eventuality, it is time for China to review its foreign policies of peaceful development and appeasement. It is time for China to stand up for its rights as an independent nation, and to protect its own territorial integrity. Any wishful and baseless claims to Chinese territories and islands in the South China Sea must be told to back off. There is no need to be nice when niceties were seen as weakness and inviting more reckless and provocative claims.
China must now say no to all the nonsensical and unsupportable claims of small countries against its territories, and be prepared to arrest any ships that intruded into them, be it Vietnam, the Phillipines or India. The days of offering the other face to be slapped is over. The small countries must be put back to their rightful place or face the military and economic might of a new and more assertive China. They can provoke and risk being kicked in the ass.
The Americans can try to start more fires, and China must be prepared to put down the fire with no hesitation and refrain. Only in that way would China be able to ensure peace and stability in the East and South China Seas. A superpower must behave like a superpower, like the Americans. Do what the Americans did but not to encroach into another country, not to invade another country and nothing of the sort like regime change. Respect the rights of all nations and demand the other nations to do likewise. The simple message is, not to trifle with a super power and think that they can get away with it.
60 years of being oppressed and humiliated by the Western powers and bullied by small countries must come to an end. Red Star over China is now Red Star over Asia. Not that China should pursue the path of big power hegemony against its neighbours. But it must not allow the small powers to be pawns of America, to nibble away at its core interests and national integrity. Mutual respect and non interference must be initiated from both sides. If China does not act tough now, all the troubles will keep coming to its doorstep.
PS. If China does not dare to stand up against the American's bullying, another cruise missile will hit their embassy like the one in Belgrade, 'by accident'. Only when China dares to stand up to the Americans will such accidents be avoided and will not happen.
Up till 1978 when Deng was returned to power, the country was experimenting with agrarian and industrial revolution on its own, with little foreign aid or assistance. The Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the Korean War, the Vietnam war, were very costly and drained further the limited resources of a third world nation.
It’s rightful place in the United Nation was occupied by Taiwan, calling itself the Republic of China and representing greater China on both sides of the causeway. Of course its legitimacy was only as legitimate as the support of the Americans. The farce of ROC representing the whole of China came to an end when the Third World countries stood against the Americans and voted in the PRC to its rightful place in the family of nations. The pretender, ROC, was booted out of the UN.
The path back to nationhood was never easy with many countries still living under the influence of Western literature and Western truth, that China was a belligerent, expansionist and aggressive emerging power. This continues till today, without China fighting a war except for self defence, with no Chinese occupation troops in any foreign land, while its territories are claimed and occupied by foreign powers. Hongkong and Macau were returned at the end of the 20th Century. Many of China’s territories are still in foreign hands. And China continues to endure the embarrassment and indignity of not being able to reclaim its lost land, taken away when it was weak and helpless. How’s that of an expansionist and unreasonable power?
Today, 60 years later, even small little countries are making claims to Chinese territories in the South China Seas, with the tacit support of the Americans. While China is still relatively weaker than the US, but immensely more powerful than all the Southeast Asian countries combined, China adopts a position of weakness in its foreign policies, encouraging these small countries to embolden their claims, even attacking and capturing Chinese ships in the high seas or in Chinese territories.
China’s failure in warding off such adventurism and irritating claims from the small countries in a way was due to its eclipse and years of living in the shadow of the big powers. It does no wish to engage in warfare, and chose a policy of appeasement, of friendship and accommodation. Any little acts of assertiveness for its rights and territorial integrity would be blown up as vindications of an expansionist and fearsome power.
The literature and propaganda of an expansionist and hostile China have been perpetuating and influencing the minds of the Asian and Southeast Asian states, and the world for decades. And all these years China was a struggling nation, poor and weak both economically and militarily. The image has set in and difficult to change no matter what China did. No matter how defensive is China’s stance, it will not change anything. In fact the weakness of the Chinese stance has created more problems for China than if China has taken a tougher stand. When it did in the Korean War, again the border intrusions by India and Vietnam, it was cast as the aggressor by the West. And the world believed in those stories.
In short, notwithstanding China’s olive branch, it will always be portrayed and viewed in distrust. The other countries believe that they will be better under Pax Americana, a known devil.
While China did not have much choice in the past to risk a devastating war with the Americans, and be flattened into the oblivion, the situation is now different. As much as America is many times more able to turn again into the stone age, China could do likewise to America. It will be a no winner war if the two super powers collide.
Ruling out this possibility, as long as both countries avoided such an eventuality, it is time for China to review its foreign policies of peaceful development and appeasement. It is time for China to stand up for its rights as an independent nation, and to protect its own territorial integrity. Any wishful and baseless claims to Chinese territories and islands in the South China Sea must be told to back off. There is no need to be nice when niceties were seen as weakness and inviting more reckless and provocative claims.
China must now say no to all the nonsensical and unsupportable claims of small countries against its territories, and be prepared to arrest any ships that intruded into them, be it Vietnam, the Phillipines or India. The days of offering the other face to be slapped is over. The small countries must be put back to their rightful place or face the military and economic might of a new and more assertive China. They can provoke and risk being kicked in the ass.
The Americans can try to start more fires, and China must be prepared to put down the fire with no hesitation and refrain. Only in that way would China be able to ensure peace and stability in the East and South China Seas. A superpower must behave like a superpower, like the Americans. Do what the Americans did but not to encroach into another country, not to invade another country and nothing of the sort like regime change. Respect the rights of all nations and demand the other nations to do likewise. The simple message is, not to trifle with a super power and think that they can get away with it.
60 years of being oppressed and humiliated by the Western powers and bullied by small countries must come to an end. Red Star over China is now Red Star over Asia. Not that China should pursue the path of big power hegemony against its neighbours. But it must not allow the small powers to be pawns of America, to nibble away at its core interests and national integrity. Mutual respect and non interference must be initiated from both sides. If China does not act tough now, all the troubles will keep coming to its doorstep.
PS. If China does not dare to stand up against the American's bullying, another cruise missile will hit their embassy like the one in Belgrade, 'by accident'. Only when China dares to stand up to the Americans will such accidents be avoided and will not happen.
When world population hits 15b
This is the forecast by the UN for year 2100 if the current reproductive rate is maintained. The earth is now hosting 7 billion human beans, and the resources are being strained. Not enough water, energy and food. The oceans’ stocks of fish are depleting, energy and natural resources are being consumed at a faster rate that is unsustainable.
But the good news for such phenomenal growth in population is that economic growth data will be in the positive. It will be growth, growth and growth. Singapore’s population will be 10m by then or more.
The earth is warming, not because of the big hole in the sky. It is the heat of human bodies and the consumption of resources for human activities that are warming the earth. The most irresponsible act of the human beans is population growth, which leads to one thing, consumption of the earth. But the economists will tell you growth is good, and govts bought into the growth myth. With growth, life will be better.
Yes, but for how long? What if all the govts continue to pursue growth, by growing their population?
But the good news for such phenomenal growth in population is that economic growth data will be in the positive. It will be growth, growth and growth. Singapore’s population will be 10m by then or more.
The earth is warming, not because of the big hole in the sky. It is the heat of human bodies and the consumption of resources for human activities that are warming the earth. The most irresponsible act of the human beans is population growth, which leads to one thing, consumption of the earth. But the economists will tell you growth is good, and govts bought into the growth myth. With growth, life will be better.
Yes, but for how long? What if all the govts continue to pursue growth, by growing their population?
10/31/2011
When the plundering and looting are over
500 years of plundering and looting are over for the Western nations. Europe and America enjoyed 500 years of prosperity built on slave trades, conquests and looting in the form of war reparations from defeated countries. They robbed the African and Asian states of land and resources as well as enriching themselves from the slave trades.
These excesses were the foundation for the centuries of prosperity, renaissance and cultural refinement and the good life in Europe and America, transforming peasants, bandits and pirates, to gentries and aristocrats. The wealth of plundering has nearly been exhausted and the ingenuities and progress in science and technology alone could not sustain the same level of richness and affluence in both continents. They did not think nor expect that the wealth could go off so fast. They continued to indulge in a lifestyle they were accustomed to from spending future money and borrowing.
Unfortunately it is game over. Without real production and productivity, without generating enough to cover the over consumption, the rich lifestyle is just not sustainable. Now they are in debt, some knee deep, some up to their neck.
And who did Europe turn to for more freebies and financial handouts? The very victims of their conquests and plundering, the emerging countries of Asia particularly China, the country they turned into the Sick Man of Asia. They bankrupted China, robbed away its dignity, pride and confidence as a nation, as a people, to live a better life with equal rights like all human beans.
The Chinese people are angry. China is still a poor developing country. Why should they used their hard earned savings, through toiling in factories and eating less, and getting by with less material comfort, to help the plunderers who consumed more of what they had and wanting to continue the good life? The plunderers had already had a good time on their expenses by robbing their country of its wealth, and dignity, it is time that they had a taste of living a humbler lifestyle, and not badmouthing China and the Chinese as crude and poor peasants with no refinement in manners and social behaviours, and imposing all kinds of trade discriminations.
Let’s see how refine and well manner they will be without the money and power. Let the world see how the bandits and pirates return to their days of plundering and rampage of other weaker nations. Would that be the new reality, a replay of history as what it was in the days of conquest and colonialism?
These excesses were the foundation for the centuries of prosperity, renaissance and cultural refinement and the good life in Europe and America, transforming peasants, bandits and pirates, to gentries and aristocrats. The wealth of plundering has nearly been exhausted and the ingenuities and progress in science and technology alone could not sustain the same level of richness and affluence in both continents. They did not think nor expect that the wealth could go off so fast. They continued to indulge in a lifestyle they were accustomed to from spending future money and borrowing.
Unfortunately it is game over. Without real production and productivity, without generating enough to cover the over consumption, the rich lifestyle is just not sustainable. Now they are in debt, some knee deep, some up to their neck.
And who did Europe turn to for more freebies and financial handouts? The very victims of their conquests and plundering, the emerging countries of Asia particularly China, the country they turned into the Sick Man of Asia. They bankrupted China, robbed away its dignity, pride and confidence as a nation, as a people, to live a better life with equal rights like all human beans.
The Chinese people are angry. China is still a poor developing country. Why should they used their hard earned savings, through toiling in factories and eating less, and getting by with less material comfort, to help the plunderers who consumed more of what they had and wanting to continue the good life? The plunderers had already had a good time on their expenses by robbing their country of its wealth, and dignity, it is time that they had a taste of living a humbler lifestyle, and not badmouthing China and the Chinese as crude and poor peasants with no refinement in manners and social behaviours, and imposing all kinds of trade discriminations.
Let’s see how refine and well manner they will be without the money and power. Let the world see how the bandits and pirates return to their days of plundering and rampage of other weaker nations. Would that be the new reality, a replay of history as what it was in the days of conquest and colonialism?
The truth and lies of home ownership
There are some bloggers who are here to spread half truths and misinformation about the state of home ownership situation and I feel obliged to state their position against what is the real truth.
Some Singaporeans are still unhappy with the housing issue and to these bloggers it is really the fault of the Singaporeans. They accused the unhappy Singaporeans for unreasonable expectations and told them to live within their means, ie, Singaporeans should buy the flats according to what they could afford. So got money buy bigger flats, no money buy smaller flats. No one is forcing Singaporeans to buy bigger properties!
They chided the Singaporeans for being unappreciative of their blessed situation, that they are lucky to be able to own a flat, big or small, as if without the govt they would not even have a roof over their heads. And that Singaporeans should be contented with a 3rm or 4 rm flat given the limited land we have.
One even said that it was better to buy a 4 rm flat instead of a car as if the choice is an either or situation. He would not want to know what causes high COEs and traffic congestions. Any school boy would be able to tell him why. If the population is not allowed to grow to such a size, there will be enough land for houses and cars.
Another truth is that what the govt is doing to solve the housing problems is the best and no one can do better, so be grateful. Who has the monopoly of wisdom and solutions? And housing is still affordable. Of course, even if a 3 rm flat is to cost $1m, it is still affordable. Just stretch it to 99 year repayment for the loan. And why not, COE is 10 years, so car loan can be stretched to 10 years. How many still believe in this affordable myth?
The affordable definition for housing is akin to forcing Singaporeans to live dangerously. Once a flat is bought based on two incomes for 30 years, pray that the two income will be there for the next 30 years. Loss of one income means loss of the flat, no longer affordable. Is this how the people are encouraged to live by, commit themselves to the neck for 30 years?
Whether the above are truths or misinformation everyone can decide for themselves. Allow me here to list out some of the hard truths, and of course if anyone thinks that what I wrote are misinformation or half truths, feel free to disagree with me.
The first truth, we have enough land to meet the demands of all our citizens for housing, provided we don’t recklessly increase the population to a point of beyond our control. Look at what Boon Wan is building. If there is not enough land, then the bringing in of more foreigners is very dangerous. We could still build and build to sell the foreigners. We have enough land for our citizens.
There is no shortage of supply for public housing. The shortage is temporary and due to bad decision and planning not to build. Everyone can have his choice of flats, and even if the richer Singaporeans were to buy smaller flats, given the restriction on speculation and owning private properties, no citizen is depriving another citizen from the chance of owning a flat, IF there is a willingness to build. There will even be enough flats for singles, broken up families etc etc.
The govt dictates how many flats to be built, when and where.
The govt dictates the price to sell, which is now blamed on market forces.
The govt dictates who can buy and who cannot buy.
The govt also dictates who can buy what and cannot buy what type of flats. Those with higher incomes are FORCED to buy bigger flats or buy more expensive flats from the private developers. Not true?
Because of the above, the people are not allowed to buy flats within their means, or buy smaller flats relative to their income. Heard of income ceilings and what are they for?
If the govt is controlling and dictating everything related to housing supply, who is the cause of the housing problem?
Did I tell lies or misinformation? You be the judge. Let those who have eyes see. But for those who refuse to see, let it be.
Some Singaporeans are still unhappy with the housing issue and to these bloggers it is really the fault of the Singaporeans. They accused the unhappy Singaporeans for unreasonable expectations and told them to live within their means, ie, Singaporeans should buy the flats according to what they could afford. So got money buy bigger flats, no money buy smaller flats. No one is forcing Singaporeans to buy bigger properties!
They chided the Singaporeans for being unappreciative of their blessed situation, that they are lucky to be able to own a flat, big or small, as if without the govt they would not even have a roof over their heads. And that Singaporeans should be contented with a 3rm or 4 rm flat given the limited land we have.
One even said that it was better to buy a 4 rm flat instead of a car as if the choice is an either or situation. He would not want to know what causes high COEs and traffic congestions. Any school boy would be able to tell him why. If the population is not allowed to grow to such a size, there will be enough land for houses and cars.
Another truth is that what the govt is doing to solve the housing problems is the best and no one can do better, so be grateful. Who has the monopoly of wisdom and solutions? And housing is still affordable. Of course, even if a 3 rm flat is to cost $1m, it is still affordable. Just stretch it to 99 year repayment for the loan. And why not, COE is 10 years, so car loan can be stretched to 10 years. How many still believe in this affordable myth?
The affordable definition for housing is akin to forcing Singaporeans to live dangerously. Once a flat is bought based on two incomes for 30 years, pray that the two income will be there for the next 30 years. Loss of one income means loss of the flat, no longer affordable. Is this how the people are encouraged to live by, commit themselves to the neck for 30 years?
Whether the above are truths or misinformation everyone can decide for themselves. Allow me here to list out some of the hard truths, and of course if anyone thinks that what I wrote are misinformation or half truths, feel free to disagree with me.
The first truth, we have enough land to meet the demands of all our citizens for housing, provided we don’t recklessly increase the population to a point of beyond our control. Look at what Boon Wan is building. If there is not enough land, then the bringing in of more foreigners is very dangerous. We could still build and build to sell the foreigners. We have enough land for our citizens.
There is no shortage of supply for public housing. The shortage is temporary and due to bad decision and planning not to build. Everyone can have his choice of flats, and even if the richer Singaporeans were to buy smaller flats, given the restriction on speculation and owning private properties, no citizen is depriving another citizen from the chance of owning a flat, IF there is a willingness to build. There will even be enough flats for singles, broken up families etc etc.
The govt dictates how many flats to be built, when and where.
The govt dictates the price to sell, which is now blamed on market forces.
The govt dictates who can buy and who cannot buy.
The govt also dictates who can buy what and cannot buy what type of flats. Those with higher incomes are FORCED to buy bigger flats or buy more expensive flats from the private developers. Not true?
Because of the above, the people are not allowed to buy flats within their means, or buy smaller flats relative to their income. Heard of income ceilings and what are they for?
If the govt is controlling and dictating everything related to housing supply, who is the cause of the housing problem?
Did I tell lies or misinformation? You be the judge. Let those who have eyes see. But for those who refuse to see, let it be.
10/30/2011
The i phenomenon
My generation is not that computer savvy to follow the latest trends in technology. What I discovered is that anything that is worth buying and carrying to show off starts with i. I am getting to be familiar with iphone, ipad, icloud, i computing, but not really know what they can do for me. The latest iphone from Apple has created such a sensation that I was told of overnight queues on the day of its launch.
My 70 plus friend is carrying one and fiddling with it amorously whenever in our presence, in the restaurant or on the bar counter. He has that smug look on his face every time he gives it a tender loving stroke. He proudly proclaimed that we need to keep up with technology and an iphone is a good start. I am still using my black and white Motorola which I don’t remember the name of the model. It still allows me to make a call or do a sms. And that is all I used it for.
The iphone craze is most prevalent in the train. Many are practically glued to the little gitzmos in their hands and making all kinds of funny noises. Sometimes out of curiosity I would steal a side glance to find out what the excitement was. Most often than not they were having funs with little colour orbs flowing and bursting along the way. I thought it was exciting and wanting to get one but only to be put off by the price of it.
I read it in the Sunday Times that the latest accessory to be seen with is iAM. Many celebrities in China, Hongkong and Taiwan are showing off with them. Michele Yeoh has or had one. Teresa Teng too had one and so did Maggie Cheong. Karen Mok, Gigi Leung and Coco Lee did not want to miss out and have recently got their own iAM. This latest contraption to be seen with in the arms of these celebs is actually called iAngmoh. The best and most expensive model is owned by Wendy Deng. And she has rechristianed it to iMurdoch.
Oh, sorry guys, such accessories are only for the ladies. The Singapore equivalent which is gaining in popularity is iDuck an Asean model.
My 70 plus friend is carrying one and fiddling with it amorously whenever in our presence, in the restaurant or on the bar counter. He has that smug look on his face every time he gives it a tender loving stroke. He proudly proclaimed that we need to keep up with technology and an iphone is a good start. I am still using my black and white Motorola which I don’t remember the name of the model. It still allows me to make a call or do a sms. And that is all I used it for.
The iphone craze is most prevalent in the train. Many are practically glued to the little gitzmos in their hands and making all kinds of funny noises. Sometimes out of curiosity I would steal a side glance to find out what the excitement was. Most often than not they were having funs with little colour orbs flowing and bursting along the way. I thought it was exciting and wanting to get one but only to be put off by the price of it.
I read it in the Sunday Times that the latest accessory to be seen with is iAM. Many celebrities in China, Hongkong and Taiwan are showing off with them. Michele Yeoh has or had one. Teresa Teng too had one and so did Maggie Cheong. Karen Mok, Gigi Leung and Coco Lee did not want to miss out and have recently got their own iAM. This latest contraption to be seen with in the arms of these celebs is actually called iAngmoh. The best and most expensive model is owned by Wendy Deng. And she has rechristianed it to iMurdoch.
Oh, sorry guys, such accessories are only for the ladies. The Singapore equivalent which is gaining in popularity is iDuck an Asean model.
10/29/2011
Has anything really changed under Boon Wan?
The latest cry of resale prices of HDB flat still soaring and that supply is shrinking, or demand is rising, tells of a picture that nothing has changed. Whatever that have changed were merely cosmetic or stop gap measures. The fundamental position of the govt on housing has remained intact.
From providing cheap and good housing, today it is housing for profit, and maximum profit if possible. Housing is also an instrument for speculation, for fictitious wealth creation when the gains are quickly swallowed by higher cost of living and inflation, and for fattening the state coffer.
Under normal circumstances there is nothing wrong with such policies and economic enterprise. Housing becomes an economic good for trading, for people to make money and lose money, for the govt to generate revenue to feed the high salary of the system. Housing is a cash cow that must keep on churning out cash that is badly needed in the system, like all other sources of revenue. When the expenditure is so high, it must be matched by an equally high income.
Unless there is a structural change, the huge growing population and the reliance on housing as a major source of govt revenue, nothing will change in the property market. Like the Stop At Two policy, the No Casino policy, the restriction on foreigners buying landed properties, $90 NS allowance, etc, they were good and relevant at one time but no longer relevant today.
Housing, as a speculative economic good, needs to be reviewed in view of the changing socio economic and infrastructural limitations of the country. The govt needs to house the people well and cheaply. The runaway cost of living, the high cost of housing, cannot go on and on without breaking the social fabric of our society.
Would there be any fundamental changes to how housing is to serve the people’s need, to provide the people with good homes that are really affordable, to give the people a better quality of life? To continue squeezing the limited finances of the people for 30 years, to empty their wallets when the money could be used for many other more important things in life, and for retirement, is harming the welfare and well being of the people in the long run.
Would the govt relook at housing as a basic core item for the people’s good, without killing them in the process, without compromising the quality of their lifestyle? Would govt see housing as an essential item, not for speculation, and its responsibility to ensure that there is an abundance of housing to keep the price down at least in public housing, where every citizen who wants a flat will have his flat minus the pain and anguish?
Would all the silly terms and conditions be removed once and for all? Singles, married, unmarried, broken family, big income, small income, all will be eligible and can afford housing at their own discretion by virtue of being a citizen of the country? The issue is supply, in building enough to meet the needs of the citizens, with wise policies, and managing the demands from the reckless influx of foreigners and a population that is too big for the people’s good.
Let the pain and anxiety of acquiring a home be removed and no longer be a daily frustration in the life of the average citizen. When housing is no longer a bugging emotional and financial issue, the people can move on to indulge in other pursuits of living, to live an excellent life. Removing housing from the equation of life’s struggle will be a major positive change in the life of all Singaporeans. It will save a lot of time and financial resources for a better quality of life.
From providing cheap and good housing, today it is housing for profit, and maximum profit if possible. Housing is also an instrument for speculation, for fictitious wealth creation when the gains are quickly swallowed by higher cost of living and inflation, and for fattening the state coffer.
Under normal circumstances there is nothing wrong with such policies and economic enterprise. Housing becomes an economic good for trading, for people to make money and lose money, for the govt to generate revenue to feed the high salary of the system. Housing is a cash cow that must keep on churning out cash that is badly needed in the system, like all other sources of revenue. When the expenditure is so high, it must be matched by an equally high income.
Unless there is a structural change, the huge growing population and the reliance on housing as a major source of govt revenue, nothing will change in the property market. Like the Stop At Two policy, the No Casino policy, the restriction on foreigners buying landed properties, $90 NS allowance, etc, they were good and relevant at one time but no longer relevant today.
Housing, as a speculative economic good, needs to be reviewed in view of the changing socio economic and infrastructural limitations of the country. The govt needs to house the people well and cheaply. The runaway cost of living, the high cost of housing, cannot go on and on without breaking the social fabric of our society.
Would there be any fundamental changes to how housing is to serve the people’s need, to provide the people with good homes that are really affordable, to give the people a better quality of life? To continue squeezing the limited finances of the people for 30 years, to empty their wallets when the money could be used for many other more important things in life, and for retirement, is harming the welfare and well being of the people in the long run.
Would the govt relook at housing as a basic core item for the people’s good, without killing them in the process, without compromising the quality of their lifestyle? Would govt see housing as an essential item, not for speculation, and its responsibility to ensure that there is an abundance of housing to keep the price down at least in public housing, where every citizen who wants a flat will have his flat minus the pain and anguish?
Would all the silly terms and conditions be removed once and for all? Singles, married, unmarried, broken family, big income, small income, all will be eligible and can afford housing at their own discretion by virtue of being a citizen of the country? The issue is supply, in building enough to meet the needs of the citizens, with wise policies, and managing the demands from the reckless influx of foreigners and a population that is too big for the people’s good.
Let the pain and anxiety of acquiring a home be removed and no longer be a daily frustration in the life of the average citizen. When housing is no longer a bugging emotional and financial issue, the people can move on to indulge in other pursuits of living, to live an excellent life. Removing housing from the equation of life’s struggle will be a major positive change in the life of all Singaporeans. It will save a lot of time and financial resources for a better quality of life.
10/28/2011
Shanghai property prices falling 27 Oct 11
SHANGHAI: Hundreds of angry home buyers launched a series of protests in China's commercial hub of Shanghai this week, as owners decried falling prices for their properties, state media said on Thursday.
Hit by weak demand and lack of funding, developers have slashed prices for some new projects in the city by more than 20 percent, the China Business News said, causing an outcry among those who bought at higher levels.
In the latest incident, some 200 home owners on Wednesday besieged the sales office for a project of leading developer Greenland Group, demanding refunds, the Shanghai Daily said.
"We require a refund because the loss we are suffering now is too great for us to afford," the paper quoted a protestor as saying.
He paid 17,000 yuan ($2,678) per square metre last year and claimed the developer had cut the price by around 30 percent to boost sales.
In a another incident, 30 home owners stormed the sales office of a project of Hong Kong-listed China Overseas Land & Investment Ltd on Wednesday, the Global Times said, repeating a similar protest from over the weekend.
In at least one case, protests have turned violent. Home owners smashed a glass door over the weekend at a sales office of Hong Kong-listed Longfor Properties Co Ltd for another project in a Shanghai suburb….
The above should be a warning to those who mindlessly went ahead to buy properties at ridiculous prices. When it comes tumbling down, don’t kpkb.
Hit by weak demand and lack of funding, developers have slashed prices for some new projects in the city by more than 20 percent, the China Business News said, causing an outcry among those who bought at higher levels.
In the latest incident, some 200 home owners on Wednesday besieged the sales office for a project of leading developer Greenland Group, demanding refunds, the Shanghai Daily said.
"We require a refund because the loss we are suffering now is too great for us to afford," the paper quoted a protestor as saying.
He paid 17,000 yuan ($2,678) per square metre last year and claimed the developer had cut the price by around 30 percent to boost sales.
In a another incident, 30 home owners stormed the sales office of a project of Hong Kong-listed China Overseas Land & Investment Ltd on Wednesday, the Global Times said, repeating a similar protest from over the weekend.
In at least one case, protests have turned violent. Home owners smashed a glass door over the weekend at a sales office of Hong Kong-listed Longfor Properties Co Ltd for another project in a Shanghai suburb….
The above should be a warning to those who mindlessly went ahead to buy properties at ridiculous prices. When it comes tumbling down, don’t kpkb.
May 6 a good day
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.’
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.’
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)