More recognition for NS men. There will be an across the board increase of $60 for all NS men beginning next month. Recruits will be getting $480 and a Lieutenant will be getting $1,180. This is a very handome increase given the fact that citizens with a monthly income of $1000 can afford to buy a 2 rm HDB flat.
From the above figures, a recruit can now afford such a flat if his girl friend is working for anything less than $1000 pm. A Lieutenant will definitely find it very comfortable with his single income to buy such flats. Only problem is that he may be disqualified if his girl friend is earning more than $1000. He could only by pass this ruling if his girlfriend stops working until they got their keys.
The NS men must be feeling very rich and smiling all over for their new found fortune. The quality of their lives will definitely be better, by $60. It makes their sacrifices so much more rewarding.
3/07/2012
Property prices, the $64k question
Anyone suggesting that property prices to come down or HDB to lower the sale price of its new flats is likely to be met with anger from all property owners. This is natural as many have sunk in a lot of money and falling property prices will affect a lot of people adversely.
On the contrary, property prices just cannot keep going up without killing the new buyers. The current suggestion that a $1000 pm income is enough to buy a 2 rm flat is quite enlightening. The govt is prepared to cough out a $60k grant leaving a net price of $40k for the flat which is a steal in today’s hot property market. It is even cheaper than rental, mind you. So why isn’t there a rush to buy such flats? There was a post by a divorcee with two kids and $60k cash in her savings. And she chose to rent a flat for fear of losing her $60k if she buys a flat. Why didn’t she be allowed to buy a $40k 2rm flat instead and free herself from the rental market and with a net gain of at least $100k should she sell her flat?
Anyway, that is another matter. What I am looking at is the opportunity for the govt to sell HDB flats to first time owners at substantially reduced price with a similar grant of $60k or $100k proportional to the size of flats without rocking the market prices. Make this an exclusive offer to Singapore citizens who have done their fair share of NS and are buying flats for the first time. Make this a privilege to be citizens, and ownership of a flat an entitlement for citizens who have pledged to defend this country with their lives. The new and young leaders have forgotten the importance of owning a roof over one’s head and how this policy was the pillar of our national building in the beginning of our nationhood. They prefer to force those who are earning a bit more, or fail to qualify under HDB rules, to lose all their money paying the private developers or end up with no homes. Citizens without a roof over their heads will take the next natural step, migrate. And their places will be filled by new ingrates. Is this a sound exchange?
By giving a substantial grant on a one time basis, the market price should not be shaken as theoretically the new buyer is still buying at the HDB list price. And by not offering to PRs, or to new citizens unless they have served NS and with a qualifying time period of say 5 years as a citizen, it will make a significant difference between citizens, new citizens and non citizens. And it is the biggest acknowledgement by the govt that this country believes in citizens first and the citizens have something worthy to defend and lay down their lives for. It will be very costly for new citizens who chose to avoid NS or to rubbish the contributions of NS men.
It is a win win situation as unwinding the prices of HDB flats is a no go and not unwinding is going to empty the savings of new flat buyers. It is a social contract and something very tangible that will benefit both citizens and the govt/state and not making the present owners feeling sore with falling property prices.
Would the govt seriously review the relationship between state and citizens and put the interests of its citizens and state above all other considerations? This is a major commitment by the govt, a statement of faith to the people, to its loyal citizens, instead of throwing money to still unknown new citizens and non citizens like scholarships that will incur more anger from the citizens. And to rub salt into the wound, they sell their HDB flats with a tidy profit and go on to seek greener pasture.
Why can’t the govt do something really beneficial to its own citizens for once? The lower income earners need help and so do the middle income earners. It is a serious matter to cough out a few hundred thousand bucks just to buy a roof over one’s head.
Believe me, the govt will win a lot of hearts and votes for such a pro citizen policy and will lose a lot of votes for pro new citizens and foreigner policies.
On the contrary, property prices just cannot keep going up without killing the new buyers. The current suggestion that a $1000 pm income is enough to buy a 2 rm flat is quite enlightening. The govt is prepared to cough out a $60k grant leaving a net price of $40k for the flat which is a steal in today’s hot property market. It is even cheaper than rental, mind you. So why isn’t there a rush to buy such flats? There was a post by a divorcee with two kids and $60k cash in her savings. And she chose to rent a flat for fear of losing her $60k if she buys a flat. Why didn’t she be allowed to buy a $40k 2rm flat instead and free herself from the rental market and with a net gain of at least $100k should she sell her flat?
Anyway, that is another matter. What I am looking at is the opportunity for the govt to sell HDB flats to first time owners at substantially reduced price with a similar grant of $60k or $100k proportional to the size of flats without rocking the market prices. Make this an exclusive offer to Singapore citizens who have done their fair share of NS and are buying flats for the first time. Make this a privilege to be citizens, and ownership of a flat an entitlement for citizens who have pledged to defend this country with their lives. The new and young leaders have forgotten the importance of owning a roof over one’s head and how this policy was the pillar of our national building in the beginning of our nationhood. They prefer to force those who are earning a bit more, or fail to qualify under HDB rules, to lose all their money paying the private developers or end up with no homes. Citizens without a roof over their heads will take the next natural step, migrate. And their places will be filled by new ingrates. Is this a sound exchange?
By giving a substantial grant on a one time basis, the market price should not be shaken as theoretically the new buyer is still buying at the HDB list price. And by not offering to PRs, or to new citizens unless they have served NS and with a qualifying time period of say 5 years as a citizen, it will make a significant difference between citizens, new citizens and non citizens. And it is the biggest acknowledgement by the govt that this country believes in citizens first and the citizens have something worthy to defend and lay down their lives for. It will be very costly for new citizens who chose to avoid NS or to rubbish the contributions of NS men.
It is a win win situation as unwinding the prices of HDB flats is a no go and not unwinding is going to empty the savings of new flat buyers. It is a social contract and something very tangible that will benefit both citizens and the govt/state and not making the present owners feeling sore with falling property prices.
Would the govt seriously review the relationship between state and citizens and put the interests of its citizens and state above all other considerations? This is a major commitment by the govt, a statement of faith to the people, to its loyal citizens, instead of throwing money to still unknown new citizens and non citizens like scholarships that will incur more anger from the citizens. And to rub salt into the wound, they sell their HDB flats with a tidy profit and go on to seek greener pasture.
Why can’t the govt do something really beneficial to its own citizens for once? The lower income earners need help and so do the middle income earners. It is a serious matter to cough out a few hundred thousand bucks just to buy a roof over one’s head.
Believe me, the govt will win a lot of hearts and votes for such a pro citizen policy and will lose a lot of votes for pro new citizens and foreigner policies.
3/06/2012
Another strategic acquisition for Singtel
Monday, Mar 05, 2012
AFP
SINGAPORE - Singapore Telecom said Monday that it will buy US mobile advertising start-up Amobee for US$321 million (S$401 million) to expand group revenues from ads and marketing across Asia.
SingTel, Southeast Asia's biggest telecom firm by revenue, said its 100 per cent buyout would boost mobile ad sales in India, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, where it has large affiliates.
"A vast majority of our 400 million (clients) are in emerging markets," said Allen Lew, chief executive of the SingTel Group's newly formed "digital life" unit announced Monday as part of a top-level reorganisation.
Citing data from technology research firm Gartner, Lew said the global mobile ad market is likely to exceed US$20 billion by 2015 from about US$7.0 billion this year, with 35 per cent of it generated in Asia-Pacific.
Amobee, founded in 2005 and based in Redwood City, California, has offices in Europe, Asia and Latin America....
Despite Amobee having unaudited net assets worth only US$600,000 as of November, Lew told a news conference SingTel was not overpaying for the firm with the all-cash acquisition.
"The way we value this company is not based on the net tangible assets. We value this company based on what we think is eventually going to be worth." ....
This must be another great strategic acquisition for Singtel to grow its business. It must be value for money.
AFP
SINGAPORE - Singapore Telecom said Monday that it will buy US mobile advertising start-up Amobee for US$321 million (S$401 million) to expand group revenues from ads and marketing across Asia.
SingTel, Southeast Asia's biggest telecom firm by revenue, said its 100 per cent buyout would boost mobile ad sales in India, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, where it has large affiliates.
"A vast majority of our 400 million (clients) are in emerging markets," said Allen Lew, chief executive of the SingTel Group's newly formed "digital life" unit announced Monday as part of a top-level reorganisation.
Citing data from technology research firm Gartner, Lew said the global mobile ad market is likely to exceed US$20 billion by 2015 from about US$7.0 billion this year, with 35 per cent of it generated in Asia-Pacific.
Amobee, founded in 2005 and based in Redwood City, California, has offices in Europe, Asia and Latin America....
Despite Amobee having unaudited net assets worth only US$600,000 as of November, Lew told a news conference SingTel was not overpaying for the firm with the all-cash acquisition.
"The way we value this company is not based on the net tangible assets. We value this company based on what we think is eventually going to be worth." ....
This must be another great strategic acquisition for Singtel to grow its business. It must be value for money.
Blimey, the govt is still talking about affordable housing
Tan Chuan Jin ‘said that his ministry tracks “very closely” the incomes of Singaporeans, to make sure that HDB flats are priced and subsidised so they’re affordable at different income levels.’
What is the govt’s definition of affordable housing? Two pay checks and 30 years to pay the mortgage. Right? Affordable in the past was one pay check and 15 to 20 years to pay. The difference between the two formulas for affordability is like heaven and hell. In the first formula it means two persons working for 30 years and leaving not much for retirement. Further, with two persons working, there is no way for the wife to stop work and look after babies as there will not be enough to pay the housing loan. See where is the source of baby problem?
In the second formula, the wife has the option to work which will provide more extra cash for a better and less financially stressful lifestyle. And if the wife so chooses to make more babies, it will not hurt the repayment of the mortgage. And in 15/20 years, the loan will be fully paid up and the rest can go to their retirement savings.
Both formula are technically right in terms of affordability. But one means work and work and hope that nothing goes wrong with the income before the loan is fully repaid. The other has a lot more slack without both spouses working to keep up with repayment of the loan.
What kind of quality of life and what kind of affordability are we talking about? This is the same kind of situation where some jokers said the island can take in 6m or 9m people while some say 5m is already too much. Everyone is right but at what cost and what consequences.
So very affordable huh? $1000 pm income can afford a 2rm flat. What about the life of the family? What kind of life? Would Tan Chuan Jin’s ministry track the affordability of one income and work on that basis and not one that would empty the savings of two incomes?
What is the govt’s definition of affordable housing? Two pay checks and 30 years to pay the mortgage. Right? Affordable in the past was one pay check and 15 to 20 years to pay. The difference between the two formulas for affordability is like heaven and hell. In the first formula it means two persons working for 30 years and leaving not much for retirement. Further, with two persons working, there is no way for the wife to stop work and look after babies as there will not be enough to pay the housing loan. See where is the source of baby problem?
In the second formula, the wife has the option to work which will provide more extra cash for a better and less financially stressful lifestyle. And if the wife so chooses to make more babies, it will not hurt the repayment of the mortgage. And in 15/20 years, the loan will be fully paid up and the rest can go to their retirement savings.
Both formula are technically right in terms of affordability. But one means work and work and hope that nothing goes wrong with the income before the loan is fully repaid. The other has a lot more slack without both spouses working to keep up with repayment of the loan.
What kind of quality of life and what kind of affordability are we talking about? This is the same kind of situation where some jokers said the island can take in 6m or 9m people while some say 5m is already too much. Everyone is right but at what cost and what consequences.
So very affordable huh? $1000 pm income can afford a 2rm flat. What about the life of the family? What kind of life? Would Tan Chuan Jin’s ministry track the affordability of one income and work on that basis and not one that would empty the savings of two incomes?
CPF Life will help lower income
Singaporeans are so lucky. They can now look forward to a stream of retirement income for life. And they have a choice of having more upfront or leave more for their beneficiaries. This is really good in paradise and Singaporeans have to thank their lucky stars for having a good govt to provide them with such a comprehensive retirement plan.
Where did the govt get to money to provide such a great retirement scheme? Fuck it, it is our own money isn’t it? With the CPF scheme, the govt does not need to provide any more social security for the people with a few exceptions. There is no need to budget for such an expenditure anymore. The people shall provide their own retirement fund for their own retirement plans. And no need any subsidies. The people are on their own from birth to death.
Every Singaporean will have to be part of this plan, like it or not. And it is also reported in the ST that ‘two thirds of those aged 65 and above receive family support and do not need to tap these schemes. So two thirds were in for a joy ride when they do not need it? Right? And all their money held in ransom!
I can’t believe that such a comprehensive scheme that forces the whole population into compulsory savings and compulsory insurance schemes is only because one third of the people needs it.
What can’t there be fine tuning to allow those who do not need it to be spare the compulsion? By the time someone hits 60, the cards are all on the table as to what they need and whether they need to be compelled to such schemes. Shouldn’t they be given the options to be in or out, or half in half out? Why should two third of the people be punished because of a one third minority?
Are Singaporeans lucky or unlucky to have such a caring govt that even plans for their retirements with their money?
Where did the govt get to money to provide such a great retirement scheme? Fuck it, it is our own money isn’t it? With the CPF scheme, the govt does not need to provide any more social security for the people with a few exceptions. There is no need to budget for such an expenditure anymore. The people shall provide their own retirement fund for their own retirement plans. And no need any subsidies. The people are on their own from birth to death.
Every Singaporean will have to be part of this plan, like it or not. And it is also reported in the ST that ‘two thirds of those aged 65 and above receive family support and do not need to tap these schemes. So two thirds were in for a joy ride when they do not need it? Right? And all their money held in ransom!
I can’t believe that such a comprehensive scheme that forces the whole population into compulsory savings and compulsory insurance schemes is only because one third of the people needs it.
What can’t there be fine tuning to allow those who do not need it to be spare the compulsion? By the time someone hits 60, the cards are all on the table as to what they need and whether they need to be compelled to such schemes. Shouldn’t they be given the options to be in or out, or half in half out? Why should two third of the people be punished because of a one third minority?
Are Singaporeans lucky or unlucky to have such a caring govt that even plans for their retirements with their money?
3/05/2012
The increasing presence of dogs in Sin
The reference to dogs for comparison to life in paradise is getting more prevalent. The MOE foreign scholar commented that there are more dogs than humans in here. In a way he is right, and there are MPs who agreed with his observations and wanting Sinkies to seriously consider how relevant this remark is to life in paradise.
The top dogs in the paradise, those in leadership positions, are often been referred to as sheep dogs, with an uncanny leadership quality to round up sheep and control the sheep. This is great quality in a dog, like needing only a handful of dogs to control a herd of sheep.
The latest desired dog that is posted in the net is the attack dog. This is a specialized breed, to attack, just bite and bite without having to think. The stronger the bite the better is the attack dog.
Then of course the famed quality of dogs being obedient to the master and doing the biddings of their master needs no further introduction. I am waiting for more variations and maybe compile it into a dictionary of Singapore’s most valued dogs. Stray dogs or abandoned dogs will be exempted as they will be taken care of by the SPCA and dog lovers.
The top dogs in the paradise, those in leadership positions, are often been referred to as sheep dogs, with an uncanny leadership quality to round up sheep and control the sheep. This is great quality in a dog, like needing only a handful of dogs to control a herd of sheep.
The latest desired dog that is posted in the net is the attack dog. This is a specialized breed, to attack, just bite and bite without having to think. The stronger the bite the better is the attack dog.
Then of course the famed quality of dogs being obedient to the master and doing the biddings of their master needs no further introduction. I am waiting for more variations and maybe compile it into a dictionary of Singapore’s most valued dogs. Stray dogs or abandoned dogs will be exempted as they will be taken care of by the SPCA and dog lovers.
In the name of transparency and accountability
Please tell, how much it costs to build a HDB 2rm flat, 3 rm flat, 4 rm flat, 5rm flat and an EC flat.
Why must contribute to CPF?
Silly me, why am I asking such a simple question? You need to build up a savings to buy affordable HDB flat mah. Tiok boh? Like that also dunno. You also need to have some money for retirement right? Tiok. And you need money to pay for big and affordable medical bills when you are old lah. So simple and I have to ask. And there are other things to pay for with the CPF savings, like Medisave Insurance, CPF Life, university fees for yourself or your children and more minimum sums to top up. I think got some more. But just stop here first. Too many very confusing and can easily forget if got dementia.
How many people need to buy HDB flats at 60 years old? Kee chiu.
How many people need to have retirement savings when he is going to work till he dies when there is no retirement?
How many people need medical insurance or a huge sum in minimum sum if he is going to work till he dies when the company will have corporate insurance schemes to cover them?
How many people will have no dependents, or children to look after them, no private medical insurance, no savings and die die must depend on their CPF savings to survive?
How many people want to spend $100k or $500k for major ops at 70 or 80 or 90?
I have checked the historical records and I think the position has changed for many people. Last time happy to retire at 55 and die at 60. Last time life expectation very short but now very long. Last time married one time, now can marry a second time at 60. Last time bought HDB flat at 30 to get married. Now must buy HDB flat at 60 or 70 to get married one more time. Last time went to hospital and pay $2000 a lot of money. Now serious illness $200k also nothing except for open heart surgery. This one exception, only $8. Last time old already at 60 and die never mind. Now 90 years old also don’t want to die and want to go for major operations to live another 100 years.
Last time… now where am I? Oh, the position has changed. So you see, the position has changed. So what? Position changed because things changed lah. Changing position is a crime or what? Cannot change position huh? Last time two child enough third child punishment. Now the more the better, got incentive to have more some more. So, position not change huh? Crime or no crime? Malu or not malu when position changed? Must explain or not? So embarrassing leh, changing position never explains, and changed quietly and think people dunno.
If one is to work till death do us part, still need to save for afterlife meh? How many people want to be a rich dead man? By the way, how many people age 80 or 90 will be left that needs to be taken care of by the govt using public money? Can the govt afford or not? Wait wait, all these oldies must have contributed a lot of CPF to subsidise the govt in one way or another and what did they get in return? 2.5% and 4% interests? That’s all? How many hundred billions were parked in the CPF by the people for so little returns? Can the govt put aside some of these money or profits from the cheap loan to provide a life line for the 80s and 90s when they are penniless? Is it asking too much when these people have contributed a life time to the CPF for the govt to use?
And not that everyone will live till 80 or 90. And not that everyone who lives till 80 or 90 needs charity. Some may mismanage their lives, some may be hit by accidents or misfortunes or the cruel turns in life. Can the govt repay some kindness and charity for the CPF savings that these people have lent to the govt in their younger days and stop forcing these people to continue to contribute to their CPF after 60, and holding a huge ransom in the name of Minimum sums in the Retirement and Medisave Accounts? Why can’t the govt show some gratitude, some compassion and some sense of justice and fairness to look after those in the 80s and 90s using the money made from these people’s CPF savings over a life time? This is only right and not charity as the govt had benefited from the people’s savings of a life time. Or the govt is thinking that the money in the CPF is what the people owed to the govt and there is no need to be grateful or to repay the people for the cheap and unconditional loan? Where is gratitude?
How many people need to buy HDB flats at 60 years old? Kee chiu.
How many people need to have retirement savings when he is going to work till he dies when there is no retirement?
How many people need medical insurance or a huge sum in minimum sum if he is going to work till he dies when the company will have corporate insurance schemes to cover them?
How many people will have no dependents, or children to look after them, no private medical insurance, no savings and die die must depend on their CPF savings to survive?
How many people want to spend $100k or $500k for major ops at 70 or 80 or 90?
I have checked the historical records and I think the position has changed for many people. Last time happy to retire at 55 and die at 60. Last time life expectation very short but now very long. Last time married one time, now can marry a second time at 60. Last time bought HDB flat at 30 to get married. Now must buy HDB flat at 60 or 70 to get married one more time. Last time went to hospital and pay $2000 a lot of money. Now serious illness $200k also nothing except for open heart surgery. This one exception, only $8. Last time old already at 60 and die never mind. Now 90 years old also don’t want to die and want to go for major operations to live another 100 years.
Last time… now where am I? Oh, the position has changed. So you see, the position has changed. So what? Position changed because things changed lah. Changing position is a crime or what? Cannot change position huh? Last time two child enough third child punishment. Now the more the better, got incentive to have more some more. So, position not change huh? Crime or no crime? Malu or not malu when position changed? Must explain or not? So embarrassing leh, changing position never explains, and changed quietly and think people dunno.
If one is to work till death do us part, still need to save for afterlife meh? How many people want to be a rich dead man? By the way, how many people age 80 or 90 will be left that needs to be taken care of by the govt using public money? Can the govt afford or not? Wait wait, all these oldies must have contributed a lot of CPF to subsidise the govt in one way or another and what did they get in return? 2.5% and 4% interests? That’s all? How many hundred billions were parked in the CPF by the people for so little returns? Can the govt put aside some of these money or profits from the cheap loan to provide a life line for the 80s and 90s when they are penniless? Is it asking too much when these people have contributed a life time to the CPF for the govt to use?
And not that everyone will live till 80 or 90. And not that everyone who lives till 80 or 90 needs charity. Some may mismanage their lives, some may be hit by accidents or misfortunes or the cruel turns in life. Can the govt repay some kindness and charity for the CPF savings that these people have lent to the govt in their younger days and stop forcing these people to continue to contribute to their CPF after 60, and holding a huge ransom in the name of Minimum sums in the Retirement and Medisave Accounts? Why can’t the govt show some gratitude, some compassion and some sense of justice and fairness to look after those in the 80s and 90s using the money made from these people’s CPF savings over a life time? This is only right and not charity as the govt had benefited from the people’s savings of a life time. Or the govt is thinking that the money in the CPF is what the people owed to the govt and there is no need to be grateful or to repay the people for the cheap and unconditional loan? Where is gratitude?
3/04/2012
11 year old handcuffed
Below is a letter posted in 3in1kopitiam blog. I am not sure if this is true and if found untrue I will remove it immediately. I just felt that I am seeing a child being raped in broad daylight. And I hope this is not true. It must not happen in my country, when a little girl of 11 is being handcuffed for a petty crime.
My 11 year old daughter was arrested and handcuffed for 2 hours today.
Dear all,
I, a Singapore born and raised Chinese citizen would like to apologise to the Singapore Government and all tax paying fellow citizens for my failure to teach my children enough about the folly of stealing
I am a night shift worker so I sleep in the day.
At 5 pm today, I woke up and discovered my younger 11 year old daughter missing. I asked the older 13 year girl but got evasive answers. After a half hour later, I panicked and called the Police. Ten minutes after the call, they called back to inform me that my daughter had been arrested for shoplifting at a Guardian Pharmacy store and that I have to bring the elder along as well to the NPC as she was involved. My queries for answers as to the circumstances under which she was arrested were curtly declined.
When I reached the NPC, I was horrified to see my daughter slumped over a table sleeping with her right hand cuffed to a railing on the wall. Sitting opposite her and typing a statement into the computer was a female uniformed Malay officer. I ascertained later she was one of two Malay arresting officers. Having been an SC before, I understand police procedures but had never seen the lack of discretion when it comes to minors as I was witnessing in my daughter's case. That female Malay officer made no eye contact with me at all for the entire duration I was in the station. Not even when she in the report room where I was.
I vented my anger at the officers present about the necessity of handcuffing my daughter leaving her in such a torturous physical position to endure despite the fact that she was already in Police custody. I told them that as a minor, she is not going to be charged for her first offence. What purpose does it serve with regard to procedural safety? That she will snatch their revolvers and turn it against them? Why subject her to the same treatment for adults committing more serious crimes?
A Malay SSSgt led me into an adjoining interview room and gave me a summary account of my daughter's arrest. He told me he will get my elder daughter's statement expedited so that we can go home as soon as possible.
I went outside for a smoke to help calm myself down before returning. I saw then that the handcuffs on my daughter were removed. She was released for her elder sister's turn to be interviewed and for a police statement to be made. I checked her wrists and discovered abrasions on both her wrists and a contact burn mark in one. I took photographs on the spot. Earlier on, I had taken a photo while she was handcuffed to the wall railing. I want to have it printed, framed and mounted in our home so that they will never forget this episode.
I was allowed to bring my younger daughter out for a quick dinner. When we returned the elder daughter had just finished her statement. She was not handcuffed. We left the NPC after I had signed both their bail bonds. We have to return to the Police Div HQ at a later date.
I took my daughter to a hospital emergency department to have her wounds attended.
Back home, I interrogated my children and found that it was the elder sister who has a compulsive obsession with makeup products, instigated the younger to pilfer that $11.90 pair of lipstick. My younger daughter has a timid temperament and is very vulnerable to suggestions. She is still undergoing counselling in school after she slashed herself from elbow to wrist not too long ago when she was ten years old after constant bullying in school.
When they were spotted they ran and escaped but the younger, out of a sense of guilt returned to surrender the stolen item to the Malay shop assistant who detained her and called the Police.
I share this story with all because I fervently hope that parents will not have to undergo the same turmoil in my heart that I feel now and that they will use my children as an example on the consequences of stealing and getting caught eventually.
Once again, let me express the deep remorse I feel for the shame I had brought to the Singaporean Chinese community through my less than adequate nurturing of my children's absorption of good moral values.
I also like to thank the Malay shop assistant who detained my child when she tried to return the stolen item and Guardian Pharmacy's strict non-negotiable policy to deter shoplifting and the teaching of a good lesson.
Lastly, I would like to thank the Singapore Police Force and the Government for the benefit of the experience my child had gone through, that benevolence which I hope my child would repay with interest when she grows up into adulthood. She don't have a passport, she can't flee the country and not return. So please do not worry.
Peace be upon all.
My 11 year old daughter was arrested and handcuffed for 2 hours today.
Dear all,
I, a Singapore born and raised Chinese citizen would like to apologise to the Singapore Government and all tax paying fellow citizens for my failure to teach my children enough about the folly of stealing
I am a night shift worker so I sleep in the day.
At 5 pm today, I woke up and discovered my younger 11 year old daughter missing. I asked the older 13 year girl but got evasive answers. After a half hour later, I panicked and called the Police. Ten minutes after the call, they called back to inform me that my daughter had been arrested for shoplifting at a Guardian Pharmacy store and that I have to bring the elder along as well to the NPC as she was involved. My queries for answers as to the circumstances under which she was arrested were curtly declined.
When I reached the NPC, I was horrified to see my daughter slumped over a table sleeping with her right hand cuffed to a railing on the wall. Sitting opposite her and typing a statement into the computer was a female uniformed Malay officer. I ascertained later she was one of two Malay arresting officers. Having been an SC before, I understand police procedures but had never seen the lack of discretion when it comes to minors as I was witnessing in my daughter's case. That female Malay officer made no eye contact with me at all for the entire duration I was in the station. Not even when she in the report room where I was.
I vented my anger at the officers present about the necessity of handcuffing my daughter leaving her in such a torturous physical position to endure despite the fact that she was already in Police custody. I told them that as a minor, she is not going to be charged for her first offence. What purpose does it serve with regard to procedural safety? That she will snatch their revolvers and turn it against them? Why subject her to the same treatment for adults committing more serious crimes?
A Malay SSSgt led me into an adjoining interview room and gave me a summary account of my daughter's arrest. He told me he will get my elder daughter's statement expedited so that we can go home as soon as possible.
I went outside for a smoke to help calm myself down before returning. I saw then that the handcuffs on my daughter were removed. She was released for her elder sister's turn to be interviewed and for a police statement to be made. I checked her wrists and discovered abrasions on both her wrists and a contact burn mark in one. I took photographs on the spot. Earlier on, I had taken a photo while she was handcuffed to the wall railing. I want to have it printed, framed and mounted in our home so that they will never forget this episode.
I was allowed to bring my younger daughter out for a quick dinner. When we returned the elder daughter had just finished her statement. She was not handcuffed. We left the NPC after I had signed both their bail bonds. We have to return to the Police Div HQ at a later date.
I took my daughter to a hospital emergency department to have her wounds attended.
Back home, I interrogated my children and found that it was the elder sister who has a compulsive obsession with makeup products, instigated the younger to pilfer that $11.90 pair of lipstick. My younger daughter has a timid temperament and is very vulnerable to suggestions. She is still undergoing counselling in school after she slashed herself from elbow to wrist not too long ago when she was ten years old after constant bullying in school.
When they were spotted they ran and escaped but the younger, out of a sense of guilt returned to surrender the stolen item to the Malay shop assistant who detained her and called the Police.
I share this story with all because I fervently hope that parents will not have to undergo the same turmoil in my heart that I feel now and that they will use my children as an example on the consequences of stealing and getting caught eventually.
Once again, let me express the deep remorse I feel for the shame I had brought to the Singaporean Chinese community through my less than adequate nurturing of my children's absorption of good moral values.
I also like to thank the Malay shop assistant who detained my child when she tried to return the stolen item and Guardian Pharmacy's strict non-negotiable policy to deter shoplifting and the teaching of a good lesson.
Lastly, I would like to thank the Singapore Police Force and the Government for the benefit of the experience my child had gone through, that benevolence which I hope my child would repay with interest when she grows up into adulthood. She don't have a passport, she can't flee the country and not return. So please do not worry.
Peace be upon all.
Abusing the legal system
The hyenas went to court. In a corner sat an old ox, alone. The door swung open, a pack of hyenas strutted in, led by two burly lawyers. It was like an entourage of mafias in all its grandeur.
‘Your honour, I have suffered tremendous stress and sleepless nights because of the old ox. He had intimidated me, threatened to trample upon me. I have been living in fear of him. My life is a misery.’ The hyena told the judge. And mama hyena gave the young hyena a motherly hug, saying, ‘My poor innocent child.’ And the rest of the hyenas yelled, ‘Bad ox, bad ox!’
Then one burly lawyer stood up slowly. He gave the lonely old ox a cold stare. He turned to the judge and spoke in a cold measured tone. ‘Your honour, the ox had been intimidating my client for a very long time. I am submitting two summons against him for criminal intimidation and causing duress to my client.’
After reviewing the summons the judge told the lawyer to tell his client that it was a minor case and the client might want to find an alternative way to resolve the matter with the ox. The hyena jumped up, ‘No way, the ox had made me suffered, threatened to beat me, to trample on me, to kick me. I cannot accept anything. I want to sue the ox.’ The lawyer nodded and told the court this was the position of his client. The hyena wanted blood. The client would not consider any other options.
The judge ordered the lawyer to discuss the matter with his client one more time and the court would resume after a break. When they returned, the ox was still sitting in his corner, feeling very intimidated by the pack of hyenas and the condescending glare of the lawyers. The lawyer turned to the court and firmly announced that his client insisted that the matter must be settled in court. ‘My client would pay all legal cost to see the ox behind bars. And we will be framing more charges against the ox, like being too slow and obstructing my client on the road….the ox is a public nuisance.’
The judge repeated by asking if that was the final position of his hyena client. The lawyer confidently said it was. The judge pondered for a moment and then said. “This is a small matter and going to court would not in anyway solve the problem. The court has many more important cases to handle and would not be appropriate to use its resources to attend to such a case. The case is hereby dismissed.’
The hyenas jumped to their feet and screamed their disapproval. They did not know that they had hit the wall of justice. They did not know that the court would not be abused to execute their law of the jungle. The two burly lawyers were equally shocked that their meticulously crafted summons were thrown out by the court. They stood there looking sheepish in front of the pack of hyenas.
The judge told the old ox who was sitting there silently throughout the session that he could go home. Outside the court, the sun smiled at the old ox. The court of law stood firm and would not bow to the law of the jungle. The instruments of the law were there to serve justice and not to be abused by the rich, the powerful and the ugly. Every element of the legal system, from the judge to the legal counsels, was part and parcel of the legal system, to see to it that justice is carried out and not abused. The guardians of the court of law must be seen to be protecting justice and not to abuse the law for their private agenda.
The hyenas left the court feeling very sore and angry that they could not use the court of law to settle their personal vendetta against the ox.
‘Your honour, I have suffered tremendous stress and sleepless nights because of the old ox. He had intimidated me, threatened to trample upon me. I have been living in fear of him. My life is a misery.’ The hyena told the judge. And mama hyena gave the young hyena a motherly hug, saying, ‘My poor innocent child.’ And the rest of the hyenas yelled, ‘Bad ox, bad ox!’
Then one burly lawyer stood up slowly. He gave the lonely old ox a cold stare. He turned to the judge and spoke in a cold measured tone. ‘Your honour, the ox had been intimidating my client for a very long time. I am submitting two summons against him for criminal intimidation and causing duress to my client.’
After reviewing the summons the judge told the lawyer to tell his client that it was a minor case and the client might want to find an alternative way to resolve the matter with the ox. The hyena jumped up, ‘No way, the ox had made me suffered, threatened to beat me, to trample on me, to kick me. I cannot accept anything. I want to sue the ox.’ The lawyer nodded and told the court this was the position of his client. The hyena wanted blood. The client would not consider any other options.
The judge ordered the lawyer to discuss the matter with his client one more time and the court would resume after a break. When they returned, the ox was still sitting in his corner, feeling very intimidated by the pack of hyenas and the condescending glare of the lawyers. The lawyer turned to the court and firmly announced that his client insisted that the matter must be settled in court. ‘My client would pay all legal cost to see the ox behind bars. And we will be framing more charges against the ox, like being too slow and obstructing my client on the road….the ox is a public nuisance.’
The judge repeated by asking if that was the final position of his hyena client. The lawyer confidently said it was. The judge pondered for a moment and then said. “This is a small matter and going to court would not in anyway solve the problem. The court has many more important cases to handle and would not be appropriate to use its resources to attend to such a case. The case is hereby dismissed.’
The hyenas jumped to their feet and screamed their disapproval. They did not know that they had hit the wall of justice. They did not know that the court would not be abused to execute their law of the jungle. The two burly lawyers were equally shocked that their meticulously crafted summons were thrown out by the court. They stood there looking sheepish in front of the pack of hyenas.
The judge told the old ox who was sitting there silently throughout the session that he could go home. Outside the court, the sun smiled at the old ox. The court of law stood firm and would not bow to the law of the jungle. The instruments of the law were there to serve justice and not to be abused by the rich, the powerful and the ugly. Every element of the legal system, from the judge to the legal counsels, was part and parcel of the legal system, to see to it that justice is carried out and not abused. The guardians of the court of law must be seen to be protecting justice and not to abuse the law for their private agenda.
The hyenas left the court feeling very sore and angry that they could not use the court of law to settle their personal vendetta against the ox.
3/03/2012
The Singapore People’s Subsidy (SPS)
Has anyone heard of this SPS? The people have been bombarded with govt subsidies everyday that they are either going bonkers or numbed. If you read the number of subsidies that the govt is giving to the Singaporeans, the govt will be bankrupt long time ago. The latest is something like $60k for a 2rm flat that costs $90k. Wow, wow, how can be so much. Where is the money coming from? There university fees, $20k but pays $6k, and what else…? I am also thinking of giving subsidies to the people, cheap rice at $20 per kilo. My cost is $100. Please queue up.
Not to be distracted, what is this SPS? This is the Singapore People’s Subsidy to the Govt in the tune of hundreds of billions. The Govt calls it national reserves. Should it be called the people’s money or savings? How does this money become the national reserves? Or are they really two different things?
Have the citizens been subsidising the Govt in the tune of hundreds of billions through the CPF? Maybe not. Dunno where the CPF money is or with who. I have read that the two national sovereign funds did not borrow from the CPF. They something like borrowed from dunno where. But somewhere somehow, they got the money. Anyway, the Govt has a lot of money to set up big investment funds to pay huge salaries to big time investment managers to invest the money and make more money to pay themselves in big bonuses. How I wish I can be appointed as a director, no need to be Chairman.
Is there any linkage between the money of the two sovereign funds and the CPF money or the people’s money? If there is…, something like A lends to B and B lends to C and C lends to D, so legally, technically, D only borrows from C and got nothing to do with A. So A cannot claim that his money is now subsidising D.
But where is A’s money if it is not subsidising someone? And what is A getting in return? 2.5% or 4% interests that could easily be wiped out by inflation. Further, A cannot touch the money for a very very long time. Some may never in their lives.
This is the Singapore People’s Subsidy to the Govt. And this is real money, no mark up to mark down. Maybe I am wrong. Where got the people subsidising the Govt? I am talking rubbish.
Not to be distracted, what is this SPS? This is the Singapore People’s Subsidy to the Govt in the tune of hundreds of billions. The Govt calls it national reserves. Should it be called the people’s money or savings? How does this money become the national reserves? Or are they really two different things?
Have the citizens been subsidising the Govt in the tune of hundreds of billions through the CPF? Maybe not. Dunno where the CPF money is or with who. I have read that the two national sovereign funds did not borrow from the CPF. They something like borrowed from dunno where. But somewhere somehow, they got the money. Anyway, the Govt has a lot of money to set up big investment funds to pay huge salaries to big time investment managers to invest the money and make more money to pay themselves in big bonuses. How I wish I can be appointed as a director, no need to be Chairman.
Is there any linkage between the money of the two sovereign funds and the CPF money or the people’s money? If there is…, something like A lends to B and B lends to C and C lends to D, so legally, technically, D only borrows from C and got nothing to do with A. So A cannot claim that his money is now subsidising D.
But where is A’s money if it is not subsidising someone? And what is A getting in return? 2.5% or 4% interests that could easily be wiped out by inflation. Further, A cannot touch the money for a very very long time. Some may never in their lives.
This is the Singapore People’s Subsidy to the Govt. And this is real money, no mark up to mark down. Maybe I am wrong. Where got the people subsidising the Govt? I am talking rubbish.
3/02/2012
$1000 income can buy a flat!
The logic of $1000 income can buy a flat is the same as $8 for an open heart surgery. But don’t laugh, it is true, it can be done. How, I dunno. But it is uttered in Parliament so must be a fact. It’s elementary, Watson!
I have known a young couple whose combined income is about $14k and with a couple of hundred thousands in savings. They will not be coming home. They could not afford to buy a private flat as it would mean emptying everything they have saved. And that is not all, still got to take nearly a million dollar mortgage.
Only fools will think of taking a million dollar mortgage and think it is alright. Or maybe a gambler will do that as there is always the hope of making more money as the value will appreciate, surely. And then sell it to buy a more expensive flat and take another bigger loan and keep snowballing the winnings.
The young couple will not be qualified for HDB flats for sure. So they must be sent to the private property market as cannon fodders to feed the developers. This is how merciless this govt has become in its housing policy and everyday pretending to ask why the Sinkies are not coming back home or moving out instead.
They are telling the highly qualified young that if they want to come back, prepare to pay a million bucks ransom first. And if the young want a bit more comfort in owning a car, another $100k at least for a cheap car. They think the young are so stupid to return home to be suckered? When they have been abroad and knowing what one million bucks can provide them, who the shit would want to come home to settle into a mickey mouse flat for the same sum, and reservist liabilities to add on?
But for less qualified professionals like FTs who would not be above the $12k income ceiling, it is okay. Convert to pink IC and buy a relatively cheaper HDB flat which the better qualified Sinkies would not be allowed to buy and no NS or reservist liabilities. Bid the time, let the property price go up and sell it to another suckered Sinkie that is not allowed to buy from the HDB direct and get out of here.
This kind of policy is so brilliant that it hurts the eyes.
I have known a young couple whose combined income is about $14k and with a couple of hundred thousands in savings. They will not be coming home. They could not afford to buy a private flat as it would mean emptying everything they have saved. And that is not all, still got to take nearly a million dollar mortgage.
Only fools will think of taking a million dollar mortgage and think it is alright. Or maybe a gambler will do that as there is always the hope of making more money as the value will appreciate, surely. And then sell it to buy a more expensive flat and take another bigger loan and keep snowballing the winnings.
The young couple will not be qualified for HDB flats for sure. So they must be sent to the private property market as cannon fodders to feed the developers. This is how merciless this govt has become in its housing policy and everyday pretending to ask why the Sinkies are not coming back home or moving out instead.
They are telling the highly qualified young that if they want to come back, prepare to pay a million bucks ransom first. And if the young want a bit more comfort in owning a car, another $100k at least for a cheap car. They think the young are so stupid to return home to be suckered? When they have been abroad and knowing what one million bucks can provide them, who the shit would want to come home to settle into a mickey mouse flat for the same sum, and reservist liabilities to add on?
But for less qualified professionals like FTs who would not be above the $12k income ceiling, it is okay. Convert to pink IC and buy a relatively cheaper HDB flat which the better qualified Sinkies would not be allowed to buy and no NS or reservist liabilities. Bid the time, let the property price go up and sell it to another suckered Sinkie that is not allowed to buy from the HDB direct and get out of here.
This kind of policy is so brilliant that it hurts the eyes.
CPF – Any sense of guilt or shame?
It is a startling fact that no MPs, to my recollection, ever spoke about the wrong and harm done to Singaporeans when their hard earned savings are being kept away from them. Yes it is legal, the govt passed laws in Parliament to help the people to have money when they are in their 80s and 90s, and plenty of money. While many are savings for their 80s and 90s when money is no longer relevant, when waiting to die is the reality, many are dying in their 60s and 70s and got no chance to enjoy a little of their life savings. This is so humane and so caring. Or is it?
Incidentally, which part of the CPF schemes, the minimum sum in Ordinary Account and Medisave Accounts were passed by Parliament? I believe the power to keep the people’s money in the CPF and the continuous increases in the minimum sums must be sanctioned by Parliament and cannot be left to the discretion of a stats board to decide.
Is there an MP who is pricked by his conscience that the CPF policy on keeping people’s money away from them when they needed it most dares to speak out against it? Or can it be concluded that all the MPs also believe that this is right, the right thing to do and they support it? If they really believe so, then obviously their conscience will not be hurt and neither should anyone of them feel any guilt about taking the poor and average Sinkies money so that others can go and invest and make big monies to pay themselves big salaries and big bonuses while on the other hand the poor helpless Sinkies are gasping for air and sinking into a life of oblivion.
The conclusion is clear, any MP that does not speak against the obnoxious shifting goal posts and the outrageously high minimum sum to be tucked away and away from their owners’ reach are accomplices to this policy. And the poor Sinkies who suffered because of it must be thankful to them for being able to leave behind a big largesse on their demise from this realm of existence.
Where got guilt? Where got conscience? Where got shame? It is all legal and good for the people. And the people are so ungrateful and complaining everyday when the super talents spent so much time and effort devising schemes to help them keep their money safely in the CPF. Shouldn’t they be happy and thankful?
Incidentally, which part of the CPF schemes, the minimum sum in Ordinary Account and Medisave Accounts were passed by Parliament? I believe the power to keep the people’s money in the CPF and the continuous increases in the minimum sums must be sanctioned by Parliament and cannot be left to the discretion of a stats board to decide.
Is there an MP who is pricked by his conscience that the CPF policy on keeping people’s money away from them when they needed it most dares to speak out against it? Or can it be concluded that all the MPs also believe that this is right, the right thing to do and they support it? If they really believe so, then obviously their conscience will not be hurt and neither should anyone of them feel any guilt about taking the poor and average Sinkies money so that others can go and invest and make big monies to pay themselves big salaries and big bonuses while on the other hand the poor helpless Sinkies are gasping for air and sinking into a life of oblivion.
The conclusion is clear, any MP that does not speak against the obnoxious shifting goal posts and the outrageously high minimum sum to be tucked away and away from their owners’ reach are accomplices to this policy. And the poor Sinkies who suffered because of it must be thankful to them for being able to leave behind a big largesse on their demise from this realm of existence.
Where got guilt? Where got conscience? Where got shame? It is all legal and good for the people. And the people are so ungrateful and complaining everyday when the super talents spent so much time and effort devising schemes to help them keep their money safely in the CPF. Shouldn’t they be happy and thankful?
What a horror story?
Chee Hean spoke in Parliament that the Govt will be relooking into its plans for a sustainable population for this island. A National Population and Talent Division of the PMO will be conducting a review on the ideal population size that is sustainable. My God, is this going to happen now?
For the last 10 years or so the Govt has been ramping up the population size from 3m to the current 5m plus and steadily growing. There were utters of 6m and 9m as good figures to hit. Now, were all these numbers guess works? Could the Govt be ramping up the population numbers without a proper view of what is sustainable and what is not sustainable?
Could all the things that were happening in loose immigration policies a haphazard process that is not coordinated, not carefully planned? And now there is a sudden realization that this needs to be studied and review and bottlenecks are appearing everywhere?
What are the proof that it was a thought through process or a policy that was left to the whims and fancies of individual ministries? The fact, a mess up of housing policies when demand grew exponentially and supply of flats were reduced by a decrease in building programmes. The fact, the transportation infrastructure is strained. The fact, medical facilities, hospital beds, etc were insufficient. The fact, many students were forced to study overseas when university places were not enough. And there are more.
Whether the study to be conducted is a frightening revelation or not, it is better late than never. And, very unlikely, that the findings would be that 5m or 6m is the max and more will be unsustainable. Very likely the results would be as expected, depending on who is expecting it. The final recommendations will be a perfect fit according to the assumptions or inputs in the brief, unless it is meant to be an objective and neutral academic approach. All the values and subjectivities of what this country is going to be or desirable by whoever is dictating it will likely be part and parcel of the review.
Though Chee Hean is calling for an inclusion of the views from the public, will it really matter if there is a bigger god with a final say of what he thinks is best? Would it matter that this country belongs to every citizen and not to a few individuals who know best and wanting their ways?
For the last 10 years or so the Govt has been ramping up the population size from 3m to the current 5m plus and steadily growing. There were utters of 6m and 9m as good figures to hit. Now, were all these numbers guess works? Could the Govt be ramping up the population numbers without a proper view of what is sustainable and what is not sustainable?
Could all the things that were happening in loose immigration policies a haphazard process that is not coordinated, not carefully planned? And now there is a sudden realization that this needs to be studied and review and bottlenecks are appearing everywhere?
What are the proof that it was a thought through process or a policy that was left to the whims and fancies of individual ministries? The fact, a mess up of housing policies when demand grew exponentially and supply of flats were reduced by a decrease in building programmes. The fact, the transportation infrastructure is strained. The fact, medical facilities, hospital beds, etc were insufficient. The fact, many students were forced to study overseas when university places were not enough. And there are more.
Whether the study to be conducted is a frightening revelation or not, it is better late than never. And, very unlikely, that the findings would be that 5m or 6m is the max and more will be unsustainable. Very likely the results would be as expected, depending on who is expecting it. The final recommendations will be a perfect fit according to the assumptions or inputs in the brief, unless it is meant to be an objective and neutral academic approach. All the values and subjectivities of what this country is going to be or desirable by whoever is dictating it will likely be part and parcel of the review.
Though Chee Hean is calling for an inclusion of the views from the public, will it really matter if there is a bigger god with a final say of what he thinks is best? Would it matter that this country belongs to every citizen and not to a few individuals who know best and wanting their ways?
3/01/2012
CPF Poll – Return our money
123 responded to the poll on the CPF savings of the people. 71% want their money back at 55. 14% want their money back at 60. 15% want to have an option whether to leave their money in the CPF after the withdrawal age. 2% are agreeable to the present system.
Altogether 98% do not agree with the current system and want their money back with 15% want to have an option to leave any money behind. What the people want to do with their hardearned money is very clear. They want their money back and no jokers should ever think that they have a right to keep the people’s money against their wishes. How could this ever be so? Who, tell me who, has the right to the people’s money if not the rightful owners? And who has the audacity and arrogance to think that he can take the people’s money and do as he pleases?
It is unacceptable, unbelieveable, outrageous, unjust, unreasonable… for anyone to act in such a manner, to keep the people’s savings from the people. Passing legislation to keep the money from its rightful owners for whatever cock reasons will only lead to more resentment as it is a foul thing to do. You cannot fool the people all the time.
Would the Govt reflect on this seriously? The people’s tolerance has a limit and the Govt should not test the people’s patience on the right to take back their money and use their money as they please. Would the Govt listen or would the Govt continue its cocky way, to ignore the people and keep holding on to the people’s money? The people are not begging for charity. The people are asking for their money back.
Or would the Govt think that it can get away with it by not bothering and keep doing as it thinks fit? There is no shortage of feedback on this matter to the Govt. The issue of so much money being kept away from their rightful owners is about as much as the people can take.
How long can the deaf frogs pretend to be deaf? They can pretend to be deaf about other things. Here it is dipping into the people's pockets.
Altogether 98% do not agree with the current system and want their money back with 15% want to have an option to leave any money behind. What the people want to do with their hardearned money is very clear. They want their money back and no jokers should ever think that they have a right to keep the people’s money against their wishes. How could this ever be so? Who, tell me who, has the right to the people’s money if not the rightful owners? And who has the audacity and arrogance to think that he can take the people’s money and do as he pleases?
It is unacceptable, unbelieveable, outrageous, unjust, unreasonable… for anyone to act in such a manner, to keep the people’s savings from the people. Passing legislation to keep the money from its rightful owners for whatever cock reasons will only lead to more resentment as it is a foul thing to do. You cannot fool the people all the time.
Would the Govt reflect on this seriously? The people’s tolerance has a limit and the Govt should not test the people’s patience on the right to take back their money and use their money as they please. Would the Govt listen or would the Govt continue its cocky way, to ignore the people and keep holding on to the people’s money? The people are not begging for charity. The people are asking for their money back.
Or would the Govt think that it can get away with it by not bothering and keep doing as it thinks fit? There is no shortage of feedback on this matter to the Govt. The issue of so much money being kept away from their rightful owners is about as much as the people can take.
How long can the deaf frogs pretend to be deaf? They can pretend to be deaf about other things. Here it is dipping into the people's pockets.
Govt can do more…
Front page news of Today paper is about building an inclusive society and the message is that the Govt can do more. At a glance this should be the case but really, when the Govt is going to do more is really a frightening proposition. The problem of this country is that the Govt is doing too much, to do everything for the people, even to keep their CPF money and when or how many children to have. The Govt is doing too much and this messing around with the people’s money and life is the main cause of many social problems.
What the Govt should do is to do less. Please, do not help the people when it is not necessary. Leave the people alone to live and manage their own lives. There are many things that the Govt can do to help the people without having to do anything. Imagine some kids in Parliament telling the whole population how to make people, how to be good?
One major curse of the Govt is how it is trying to manage and control the people’s hard earned savings in the CPF as if they belong to the Govt. For goodness sake, lay off, and return the money to their rightful owners. A stronger word would be ‘fuck off’. Leave the people’s money alone! So much saving and still not enough for retirement! Why? Why?
The next major concern of the people is the influx of foreigners that the Govt claimed is good for the people when the people are getting really pissed off, getting hurt. Why is something that the Govt claimed is so good is seen to be so bad by the people? Maybe the Govt is only thinking economic and money while the people are thinking social, our society, the way of life, how they want their country to be. The people must have the final say as to what the country should be and not a few individuals who are just as human and would not be in Govt forever. The country belongs to the people, not to a few individual who want to decide what they think is good for the people without consulting the people. Ask the people, consult the people. No need to?
The Govt can do less and allow the real market forces to determine housing demand and supply without controlling the supply and increasing the demand unnaturally.
The Govt can do less with the taxpayer’s money by not giving it to foreigners that have nothing to do with us. Do just a little or better, don’t do anything in this regard. Give the money to the children of the taxpayers that are more deserving.
The Govt can do less by allowing the people and country to develop naturally towards a freer and more inclusive society.
The Govt can do less in limiting the supply of professionals, especially medical so that the market forces can work to lower the cost of medical services.
The Govt can also do less in not raising the GST to help the poor. No, no need, the poor don’t need this kind of help.
There are many things that the Govt can do less and end up helping the people more. Property enhancement to inflate property prices is a double edged sword and one profits from another. What is really bad is for foreigners to profit from the citizens. This is detrimental to the well being of our own people.
The Govt can also issue less licences to foreigners, including PRs for small businesses that the locals can do without having to compete with mercenaries who have no stake in this country.
My call to the Govt is to do less in areas that the people can look after themselves. Please, don’t. The daft Sinkies are really not that daft that some leaders make them out to be. A second upper foreign scholar is not better than a second upper local scholar. Not deserving of scholarship based on merit.
What the Govt should do is to do less. Please, do not help the people when it is not necessary. Leave the people alone to live and manage their own lives. There are many things that the Govt can do to help the people without having to do anything. Imagine some kids in Parliament telling the whole population how to make people, how to be good?
One major curse of the Govt is how it is trying to manage and control the people’s hard earned savings in the CPF as if they belong to the Govt. For goodness sake, lay off, and return the money to their rightful owners. A stronger word would be ‘fuck off’. Leave the people’s money alone! So much saving and still not enough for retirement! Why? Why?
The next major concern of the people is the influx of foreigners that the Govt claimed is good for the people when the people are getting really pissed off, getting hurt. Why is something that the Govt claimed is so good is seen to be so bad by the people? Maybe the Govt is only thinking economic and money while the people are thinking social, our society, the way of life, how they want their country to be. The people must have the final say as to what the country should be and not a few individuals who are just as human and would not be in Govt forever. The country belongs to the people, not to a few individual who want to decide what they think is good for the people without consulting the people. Ask the people, consult the people. No need to?
The Govt can do less and allow the real market forces to determine housing demand and supply without controlling the supply and increasing the demand unnaturally.
The Govt can do less with the taxpayer’s money by not giving it to foreigners that have nothing to do with us. Do just a little or better, don’t do anything in this regard. Give the money to the children of the taxpayers that are more deserving.
The Govt can do less by allowing the people and country to develop naturally towards a freer and more inclusive society.
The Govt can do less in limiting the supply of professionals, especially medical so that the market forces can work to lower the cost of medical services.
The Govt can also do less in not raising the GST to help the poor. No, no need, the poor don’t need this kind of help.
There are many things that the Govt can do less and end up helping the people more. Property enhancement to inflate property prices is a double edged sword and one profits from another. What is really bad is for foreigners to profit from the citizens. This is detrimental to the well being of our own people.
The Govt can also issue less licences to foreigners, including PRs for small businesses that the locals can do without having to compete with mercenaries who have no stake in this country.
My call to the Govt is to do less in areas that the people can look after themselves. Please, don’t. The daft Sinkies are really not that daft that some leaders make them out to be. A second upper foreign scholar is not better than a second upper local scholar. Not deserving of scholarship based on merit.
2/29/2012
Mass immigration
Mass immigration, and how Labour tried to destroy Britishness
By Simon Heffer
22nd February 2012
Throughout the tenure of the last Labour government this newspaper, and others — while praising the huge contribution immigrants had made to this country in the past — attacked the laxity of what were supposed to be our border controls.
It was clear the very nature of our society was being changed by a new kind of uncontrolled mass immigration — and without the British people ever having been asked whether they supported the policy….
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104550/Mass-immigration-Labour-tried-destroy-Britishness.html#ixzz1nApMhrYM
The British are feeling the heat caused by immigrants, from the rights of immigrants to be themselves, translating information, competitive for services and infrastructure, etc etc. And they are a pretty big country with a great and proud history, and they are finding their country being pulled apart.
How would the presence of millions of immigrants living among us on a 2:3 ratio? The only thing to our advantage is that we don’t have much of a share history or proud history to cling to. We are rojak and adding more rojak would not undermine the quality of our rojak. We can be a city of continuous change, continuous rojak with no binding history or share identity. All we need is the drive to make money and more money.
Is this what we really want for our children and our country? Is this what we are working towards, a soulless country without any sense of pride or identity, everyone a piece of rojak? Are we really serious in wanting to build a nation of stayers or a city of vagabonds, wanderers, thrill seekers, opportunists, and money grabbers?
By Simon Heffer
22nd February 2012
Throughout the tenure of the last Labour government this newspaper, and others — while praising the huge contribution immigrants had made to this country in the past — attacked the laxity of what were supposed to be our border controls.
It was clear the very nature of our society was being changed by a new kind of uncontrolled mass immigration — and without the British people ever having been asked whether they supported the policy….
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104550/Mass-immigration-Labour-tried-destroy-Britishness.html#ixzz1nApMhrYM
The British are feeling the heat caused by immigrants, from the rights of immigrants to be themselves, translating information, competitive for services and infrastructure, etc etc. And they are a pretty big country with a great and proud history, and they are finding their country being pulled apart.
How would the presence of millions of immigrants living among us on a 2:3 ratio? The only thing to our advantage is that we don’t have much of a share history or proud history to cling to. We are rojak and adding more rojak would not undermine the quality of our rojak. We can be a city of continuous change, continuous rojak with no binding history or share identity. All we need is the drive to make money and more money.
Is this what we really want for our children and our country? Is this what we are working towards, a soulless country without any sense of pride or identity, everyone a piece of rojak? Are we really serious in wanting to build a nation of stayers or a city of vagabonds, wanderers, thrill seekers, opportunists, and money grabbers?
For the love of the motherland
Qian Xuesen, the Chinese nuclear scientist educated in MIT and a co founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Caltech, returned to China in 1955 after being detained at Terminal Island in California for 5 years. On his return to his motherland, he was instrumental in the setting up of China’s missile and space programme. He is being honoured as the Father of Chinese Rocketry and the rest is history. China’s progress in space and nuclear technology owed a lot to scientists like Qian and many others educated in the West. They returned home to serve their motherland, exchanging a life of luxury in the West for something where luxury is a rarity.
Many Chinese professors and scholars have gone home to serve their country for anything but money. The emotional attachment and love of the motherland are beyond comprehension. Not to Singaporeans anyway. Singaporeans only understand money. The motherland concept is something intangible, cannot be bought by money, and with intelligent and patriotic people willingly making great personal sacrifices just to serve their country and people.
It may be idealistic, it may sound stupid, it may sound unrealistic, but the power of the motherland is not something to be trifled with. Countries that have developed such values and virtues like patriotism, nationalism, will triumph in adversity, by the sheer loyalty, commitment and dedication of its own people that believe in the motherland.
In Singapore, what kind of values are we teaching the people, to bind the people to this land which rightfully is their motherland? What we are seeing today is the pride of a materialistic people that believe only in money and nothing else. And half a century of nation building is being rubbished, that we conveniently called this island a hotel, a city state, not a country. And we keep dismissing the citizens in favour of alien foreigners for their perceived talents. We buy talents, we bribe talents, we beg talents, hoping that they will be here to contribute to our economic growth and well being. When things are fine, when the sky is clear, they will be here.
When the weather turns foul, will these talents stay and strive with the people in times of adversity? Many would not even want to serve in NS. Would our own elite, the self proclaimed great sacrifices they made to serve the country, also stay and struggle side by side with the people when there is a national crisis?
Or would all of them reveal themselves as just fair weather friends, and would scoot the moment things turn bad? What is there to hold them back when the draw for them to be here is money, while everything else is an aspiration? Would they bother to double think, that this is their motherland, to fight and to die for? Do the elite bat an eyelid if this city state is lost for whatever reasons, sold or snatch away by anyone?
Would those who are here stay and fight? Would those overseas come running home to help to defend this city state like defending their home, their motherland? The Chinese will return to fight for their motherland, the Indians will return to fight for their motherland, the Jews around the world will return to defend their motherland, not for money but because it is their motherland.
Would Singaporeans do likewise, driven by the cause of their country, their motherland, to come home to stand side by side with their fellow citizens? Unfortunately, no Singaporean is calling this island their motherland. The word motherland is alien to Singaporeans. More are familiar with the word hotel. In a crisis, the reverse is likely to happen, with everyone for himself, running away as fast as they could from this island, which was never seen as their motherland.
Bring in the foreign talents, bring them in. Pay them, bribe them, just bring them in to share the good fortune of this island hotel. It is not a motherland to anyone, not to Singaporeans, not to any foreigners. Just a hotel of convenience.
Many Chinese professors and scholars have gone home to serve their country for anything but money. The emotional attachment and love of the motherland are beyond comprehension. Not to Singaporeans anyway. Singaporeans only understand money. The motherland concept is something intangible, cannot be bought by money, and with intelligent and patriotic people willingly making great personal sacrifices just to serve their country and people.
It may be idealistic, it may sound stupid, it may sound unrealistic, but the power of the motherland is not something to be trifled with. Countries that have developed such values and virtues like patriotism, nationalism, will triumph in adversity, by the sheer loyalty, commitment and dedication of its own people that believe in the motherland.
In Singapore, what kind of values are we teaching the people, to bind the people to this land which rightfully is their motherland? What we are seeing today is the pride of a materialistic people that believe only in money and nothing else. And half a century of nation building is being rubbished, that we conveniently called this island a hotel, a city state, not a country. And we keep dismissing the citizens in favour of alien foreigners for their perceived talents. We buy talents, we bribe talents, we beg talents, hoping that they will be here to contribute to our economic growth and well being. When things are fine, when the sky is clear, they will be here.
When the weather turns foul, will these talents stay and strive with the people in times of adversity? Many would not even want to serve in NS. Would our own elite, the self proclaimed great sacrifices they made to serve the country, also stay and struggle side by side with the people when there is a national crisis?
Or would all of them reveal themselves as just fair weather friends, and would scoot the moment things turn bad? What is there to hold them back when the draw for them to be here is money, while everything else is an aspiration? Would they bother to double think, that this is their motherland, to fight and to die for? Do the elite bat an eyelid if this city state is lost for whatever reasons, sold or snatch away by anyone?
Would those who are here stay and fight? Would those overseas come running home to help to defend this city state like defending their home, their motherland? The Chinese will return to fight for their motherland, the Indians will return to fight for their motherland, the Jews around the world will return to defend their motherland, not for money but because it is their motherland.
Would Singaporeans do likewise, driven by the cause of their country, their motherland, to come home to stand side by side with their fellow citizens? Unfortunately, no Singaporean is calling this island their motherland. The word motherland is alien to Singaporeans. More are familiar with the word hotel. In a crisis, the reverse is likely to happen, with everyone for himself, running away as fast as they could from this island, which was never seen as their motherland.
Bring in the foreign talents, bring them in. Pay them, bribe them, just bring them in to share the good fortune of this island hotel. It is not a motherland to anyone, not to Singaporeans, not to any foreigners. Just a hotel of convenience.
2/28/2012
Zoellick – China needs major economic reform
The President of World bank, Robert Zoellick, has warned that China needs a major economic reform. He said, ‘This is not the time for just muddling through. It’s time to get ahead of events and to adapt to major changes in the world and national economies.’
China has been muddling through for the last 3 or 4 decades and has transformed itself from a poor third world country to the second largest economy in the world. On the other hand, the Americans and Europeans have been so well managed over the same period that the Americans is now the world’s biggest debtor and many of the European countries are running into bankruptcies.
I would recommend that the Chinese leaders should continue to muddle through the way they did and not listen to the World Bank or China would end up like what America and Europe are today.
China, carry on, keep muddling through and be the biggest economy in the next 25 years. Don’t ever listen to advices from people who mismanaged their economies. Never listen to them as their advices are likely to be laced with poison like the apple given to Snow White. The Chinese leaders must have been doing it right for the last few decades to get where they are today. And the losers are trying to teach China how to run its economy with many crying and screaming that the Chinese economy will be doomed for the last 30 years.
China has been muddling through for the last 3 or 4 decades and has transformed itself from a poor third world country to the second largest economy in the world. On the other hand, the Americans and Europeans have been so well managed over the same period that the Americans is now the world’s biggest debtor and many of the European countries are running into bankruptcies.
I would recommend that the Chinese leaders should continue to muddle through the way they did and not listen to the World Bank or China would end up like what America and Europe are today.
China, carry on, keep muddling through and be the biggest economy in the next 25 years. Don’t ever listen to advices from people who mismanaged their economies. Never listen to them as their advices are likely to be laced with poison like the apple given to Snow White. The Chinese leaders must have been doing it right for the last few decades to get where they are today. And the losers are trying to teach China how to run its economy with many crying and screaming that the Chinese economy will be doomed for the last 30 years.
New Hawker Centre Philosophy
The most gratifying news today in the front page of ST is about a proposed change in the philosophy of running hawker centres by a public panel headed by entrepreneur Elim Chew. The principle behind the thinking is that as a national institution providing basic needs to the people, it cannot go along like other institutions to be run by market forces where profiteering is the main motivating factor. And hawker centre customers are the average Singaporeans that cannot afford to keep paying ever higher and higher food cost.
The problem of the current system is that hawker stalls are changing hands for hundreds of thousands or being sublet for substantial profits. Also, some private developers are ever eager to grab a hawker centre to ‘upgrade’ it and then you know the story, the prices will have to be double. And the final victims of these transactions are the average Singaporeans. All the profiteering and high cost will be passed down to the customers. And as the prices of these hawker stalls are rising, the hawkers are getting marginal profits despite of it while the poor customers keep paying more for less.
For those who believe blindly about market forces and the fictitious manipulated market forces, I am sure they will be crying foul. How can the govt interfere with the market forces? The customers must pay the price as so determined by the market.
Now, would the govt really accept the recommendations by the public panel? There is hope as the 18 member panel was set up by Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister himself. So would Vivian finally do something good for the people and fight this case in Parliament against those who believe in fictitious market forces and profiteering?
The problem of the current system is that hawker stalls are changing hands for hundreds of thousands or being sublet for substantial profits. Also, some private developers are ever eager to grab a hawker centre to ‘upgrade’ it and then you know the story, the prices will have to be double. And the final victims of these transactions are the average Singaporeans. All the profiteering and high cost will be passed down to the customers. And as the prices of these hawker stalls are rising, the hawkers are getting marginal profits despite of it while the poor customers keep paying more for less.
For those who believe blindly about market forces and the fictitious manipulated market forces, I am sure they will be crying foul. How can the govt interfere with the market forces? The customers must pay the price as so determined by the market.
Now, would the govt really accept the recommendations by the public panel? There is hope as the 18 member panel was set up by Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister himself. So would Vivian finally do something good for the people and fight this case in Parliament against those who believe in fictitious market forces and profiteering?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)