'Lex adjudged that chief executive Bill Winters has done a poor job of preserving shareholder value — never mind building some — since he joined just over three years ago. The shares are down 40 per cent.
Emphasis mine. FT’s Letter from Lex summarising it’s article that’s behind a pay wall. Emphasis mine.
Time for Temasek, the controlling shareholder, to talk to other top
10 shareholders about removing him? Pigs will fly first. The CEO that
ran the bank into the ground was kicked out because another top 10
shareholder,Aberdeen Asset Mgt, as it then was, organised a campaign
against him.
But then Temasek’s paper general CEOs would also have to go if they
are judged by best practices ang moh private sector standards.' Cynical Investor
The above were comments by Cynical Investor posted in TRE. He was talking about the financial woes in StanChart and the heavy fines it is paying the US govt. The shareholders are definitely unhappy with the current CEO and may be looking for a replacement. Temasek is a major shareholder of StanChart and would be concerned about who is next to helm the bank.
While Cynical Investor was talking about paper general CEOs in a different direction, maybe Temasek should seriously consider putting up one of its hundreds of paper general for the post. It has placed many paper generals in different CEO positions that were unrelated to the experience and training of a soldier general and all doing extremely well. Why not putting one as the CEO of StanChart? Cynical Investor also commented that this Winters made our paper general looked so good. OK a little OTJ may be required but this is chicken feat.
It is a good opportunity to train paper generals into top bankers. Singapore needs more locals, oops, shouldn't use this dirty word, I mean Singaporeans, to become top bankers. A top financial centre must continuously be grooming its citizens for such positions and not relying on foreigners all the time. It is high time such a scheme be put in place.
If this suggestion is a no go because a MNC would want its CEO to have relevant experience and soldiering experience of paper generals would not be accepted as good enough, perhaps Temasek can send its top Singaporean banker, Piyush Gupta to take over StanChart. Then the CEO of DBS can go to a Singaporean that is next in the queue.
The foreign shareholders inn StanChart would definitely welcome Gupta as he is now one of the world's top bankers, if not the best banker in the world, at least he is the best in Asia helming Asia's number One bank, DBS.
This would be a good career path to develop for retiring paper generals. DBS is a good training ground for paper generals to be bankers and then move on to helm StanChart or other foreign banks where Temasek is a majority shareholder. It is time that this career path be institutionalised to provide a good career for our hundreds of paper generals queuing up to join the private sector as CEOs.
Who do you think Mr Heng? Or shall I ask Mr Lee or Madam?
10/14/2018
10/13/2018
Unfair trading practices versus Unequal Treaties
The Americans are accusing China and other trading partners of unfair
trade practices. And using this excuse the Americans have launched a
trade war with all their trading partners and targeting China as their
number One enemy.
How unfair are the trade practices of China? How would these so called unfair trade practices compare to the Unequal Treaties imposed on China after the Opium Wars and Sino Japanese War? Any of the Americans remember what were these Unequal Treaties and how fair or unfair they were to China? But before these Unequal Treaties, do they remember the wars of conquest, colonization of people and countries and imposing their will on the colonized people, looting and plundering these countries into poverty, robbing their land and natural resources and the dignity of the conquered and colonized people?
Since the Europeans left their shores to colonise and control the rest of the world, since the end of WW2, all the rules governing international trade were dictated by the West and subsequently by the Americans. The Americans and the West controlled the UN, IMF, World Bank and many international organizations to dictate rules for the rest of the world. They imposed sanctions and restrictions on what they want to buy and sell on the rest of the world. They set all the terms of agreements in their favour. Note, all the rules and regulations and treaties were dictated by the West and the Americans. And during the days of colonial rule and unequal treaties, the terms were forced on the other side under duress and threats of war. And the rest of the world, including China, has to abide and play by these rules. They imposed their will on China with stringent and unfair terms to join the WTO, the UN and any organization they controlled, and often banned China from organizations they did not want China to participate, like space technology and exploration.
Given the fact that the Americans were the ones that were dictating terms on international trade and international relations, how can these terms be favourable to China and unfair to the Americans? Are the Americans so stupid, so altruistic, so generous, to China and the rest of the world? China was isolated by the Americans for decades. The Americans are still doing it to China in many areas, and to countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and many other countries they demonized as enemies.
The economic downfall of the USA is due to unfair practices, unfair practices imposed on the Americans by China and the rest of the world and China and the rest of the world are to be blamed for this?
On the other hand, China and the rest of the world were the underdogs. And when China signed trade or infrastructure building agreements with the rest of the world, these were done on a willing buyer willing seller basis, on terms negotiated by equals, with the best negotiators from both sides. These agreements by China and other countries were not done at gun point like the West and the Americans used to do when they conquered and colonized people/states.
Today, all the little countries are liberated and independent countries except the semi colonies of the USA and some colonies of European powers. South Korea and Japan are still victims of unequal treaties imposed on them by the Americans, demanding the right to station troops in their countries and controlling their armed forces. Same as in several Middle East countries. The independent countries today are helmed by highly politicized, smart and nationalistic leaders. Would these leaders signed agreements with China under pressure and to their disadvantage? Would the brilliant American trade negotiators/gangsters sign unfair trade agreements with China, under pressure because China is more powerful than the Americans? Could China dictate trading terms with the Americans in favour of China and Americans willingly agree to unfair trade practices when they are in charge, in control of everything, the world's biggest hegemon?
The facts, all the trading rules and terms were dictated by the Americans and the Chinese were price takers of such unfair agreements, often biased and in favour of the Americans. How valid is the claim of Donald Trump and his gangsters in Washington that China is imposing unfair trade practices or taking advantage of unfair trade practices on the Americans?
This is exactly like the saying, a thief shouting thief. China and the rest of the world are playing by the rules set by the Americans, under the American world order, living under Pax Americana, the Evil Empire.
How unfair are the trade practices of China? How would these so called unfair trade practices compare to the Unequal Treaties imposed on China after the Opium Wars and Sino Japanese War? Any of the Americans remember what were these Unequal Treaties and how fair or unfair they were to China? But before these Unequal Treaties, do they remember the wars of conquest, colonization of people and countries and imposing their will on the colonized people, looting and plundering these countries into poverty, robbing their land and natural resources and the dignity of the conquered and colonized people?
Since the Europeans left their shores to colonise and control the rest of the world, since the end of WW2, all the rules governing international trade were dictated by the West and subsequently by the Americans. The Americans and the West controlled the UN, IMF, World Bank and many international organizations to dictate rules for the rest of the world. They imposed sanctions and restrictions on what they want to buy and sell on the rest of the world. They set all the terms of agreements in their favour. Note, all the rules and regulations and treaties were dictated by the West and the Americans. And during the days of colonial rule and unequal treaties, the terms were forced on the other side under duress and threats of war. And the rest of the world, including China, has to abide and play by these rules. They imposed their will on China with stringent and unfair terms to join the WTO, the UN and any organization they controlled, and often banned China from organizations they did not want China to participate, like space technology and exploration.
Given the fact that the Americans were the ones that were dictating terms on international trade and international relations, how can these terms be favourable to China and unfair to the Americans? Are the Americans so stupid, so altruistic, so generous, to China and the rest of the world? China was isolated by the Americans for decades. The Americans are still doing it to China in many areas, and to countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and many other countries they demonized as enemies.
The economic downfall of the USA is due to unfair practices, unfair practices imposed on the Americans by China and the rest of the world and China and the rest of the world are to be blamed for this?
On the other hand, China and the rest of the world were the underdogs. And when China signed trade or infrastructure building agreements with the rest of the world, these were done on a willing buyer willing seller basis, on terms negotiated by equals, with the best negotiators from both sides. These agreements by China and other countries were not done at gun point like the West and the Americans used to do when they conquered and colonized people/states.
Today, all the little countries are liberated and independent countries except the semi colonies of the USA and some colonies of European powers. South Korea and Japan are still victims of unequal treaties imposed on them by the Americans, demanding the right to station troops in their countries and controlling their armed forces. Same as in several Middle East countries. The independent countries today are helmed by highly politicized, smart and nationalistic leaders. Would these leaders signed agreements with China under pressure and to their disadvantage? Would the brilliant American trade negotiators/gangsters sign unfair trade agreements with China, under pressure because China is more powerful than the Americans? Could China dictate trading terms with the Americans in favour of China and Americans willingly agree to unfair trade practices when they are in charge, in control of everything, the world's biggest hegemon?
The facts, all the trading rules and terms were dictated by the Americans and the Chinese were price takers of such unfair agreements, often biased and in favour of the Americans. How valid is the claim of Donald Trump and his gangsters in Washington that China is imposing unfair trade practices or taking advantage of unfair trade practices on the Americans?
This is exactly like the saying, a thief shouting thief. China and the rest of the world are playing by the rules set by the Americans, under the American world order, living under Pax Americana, the Evil Empire.
10/12/2018
Training to become hawkers
I read in the main media of this great opportunity to become hawkers in
Singapore’s famous hawker culture business. ITE has started a new
hawker course to teach and train aspiring young people, very likely
armed with degrees or diplomas to become hawkers. This new profession is
about the best thing that has happened in Singapore for the young and
entrepreneurial Singaporeans since getting a permanent job is quite
difficult as most of the jobs were taken up by the 2 million foreign
talents working here, and with more coming in to become locals and
Singaporeans. New Singaporean graduates are finding it tough competing
with these new talents, or is it that employers for some reasons, prefer
to hire foreigners instead of Singaporeans, and other than becoming
taxi drivers, it is better to become hawkers.
The ITE course, Introduction to Managing a Hawker Business, has attracted 25 aspiring young people to learn this new trade. Among the things that they would learn other than managing a hawker stall would be things like how to source for suppliers and yes, how to formulate a business plan. This is serious business.
I am calling my grandfather to apply to be a lecturer for this course. His experience as a hawker for 50 years, from the time he arrived in this island, with out a penny, with no education, would be very useful to the new trainees that have no clues about running a hawker stall. My grandfather would be able to teach them all the tricks of the trade, including sourcing for suppliers, how to cut operating cost, how to work from 6am to 12 mid night, how to stand frying char kway teow for long hours without going to the toilet.
But there is a caveat. My grandfather would not know how to teach them how to write business plan. Also he would have to conduct his course in Hokien. He had never been to school. He learnt his trade the hard way or what they called, OJT. There was no one to teach him how to be a hawker then, and no hawker courses to learn how to be a hawker.
Hope if he got the job, the highly educated trainee aspiring hawkers would bear with him and be willing to learn from him. Hawker business is not so easy and they don’t teach them in schools or the universities. So my grandfather and his peers would be the best lecturers/trainers for such a course. They had been there and done it, no pure reading by the books.
This poses a new query in my mind. Who are they getting to train these aspiring hawkers, people with experience in being hawkers or text books academics? I am still puzzled by the availability of such experts in the hawker business. Would a Mat Salleh help?
Ok, ok, I am kidding. My grandfather must be 150 years if he is still alive. But hawker business is going to be a new profession for our young people since they no longer can become IT professionals or other professionals in Singapore. This is their best hope to earn a decent living and have a permanent job or profession. Otherwise they would likely be unemployed or underemployed.
The caring govt has come forward to give them a helping hand by initiating such a great course to train them to be hawkers. If not they would not have a clue how to become a hawker. Singaporeans must be taught or they would not be able to do anything on their own. This is like they said, no initiative, cannot think, cannot find out on their own, a product of Singapore’s tuition culture.
My grandfather did not need any tuition or training to become a successful hawker. He would faint if he knows that his class would have highly educated young people with no ideas about how to be a hawker. He would like say, seow.
The ITE course, Introduction to Managing a Hawker Business, has attracted 25 aspiring young people to learn this new trade. Among the things that they would learn other than managing a hawker stall would be things like how to source for suppliers and yes, how to formulate a business plan. This is serious business.
I am calling my grandfather to apply to be a lecturer for this course. His experience as a hawker for 50 years, from the time he arrived in this island, with out a penny, with no education, would be very useful to the new trainees that have no clues about running a hawker stall. My grandfather would be able to teach them all the tricks of the trade, including sourcing for suppliers, how to cut operating cost, how to work from 6am to 12 mid night, how to stand frying char kway teow for long hours without going to the toilet.
But there is a caveat. My grandfather would not know how to teach them how to write business plan. Also he would have to conduct his course in Hokien. He had never been to school. He learnt his trade the hard way or what they called, OJT. There was no one to teach him how to be a hawker then, and no hawker courses to learn how to be a hawker.
Hope if he got the job, the highly educated trainee aspiring hawkers would bear with him and be willing to learn from him. Hawker business is not so easy and they don’t teach them in schools or the universities. So my grandfather and his peers would be the best lecturers/trainers for such a course. They had been there and done it, no pure reading by the books.
This poses a new query in my mind. Who are they getting to train these aspiring hawkers, people with experience in being hawkers or text books academics? I am still puzzled by the availability of such experts in the hawker business. Would a Mat Salleh help?
Ok, ok, I am kidding. My grandfather must be 150 years if he is still alive. But hawker business is going to be a new profession for our young people since they no longer can become IT professionals or other professionals in Singapore. This is their best hope to earn a decent living and have a permanent job or profession. Otherwise they would likely be unemployed or underemployed.
The caring govt has come forward to give them a helping hand by initiating such a great course to train them to be hawkers. If not they would not have a clue how to become a hawker. Singaporeans must be taught or they would not be able to do anything on their own. This is like they said, no initiative, cannot think, cannot find out on their own, a product of Singapore’s tuition culture.
My grandfather did not need any tuition or training to become a successful hawker. He would faint if he knows that his class would have highly educated young people with no ideas about how to be a hawker. He would like say, seow.
10/11/2018
Oxfam’s finding on Singapore’s inequality ‘simplistic and prescriptive’
SMU don Eugene Tan commented on the Oxfam report on Singapore’s income
inequality that the ‘methodology was simplistic and prescriptive’. It
ranked Singapore 149 out of 157 nations, just one notch above Laos.
Singapore’s position fell from a high of 86 last year to near rock
bottom, a ranking comparable to the ranking for Singapore’s main media.
How atrocious! Would the comments be more friendly if the rankings were
like those for our world class universities? Incidentally the rankings
for our world class universities have received a few condemnations and
they have started to think of a more realistic and relevant way of
ranking our world class universities, ranked in the same ethereal realm
of existence as the top universities of the world.
With such bad ranking on income inequality, this report rightly deserves to be rejected and dismissed. How could Singapore be lying so low down there in the company of Laos and not right up there with the top European countries? Must be very biased, or yes, simplistic and prescriptive. And Minister Desmond Lee was also unhappy with the report and was offended. He said, ‘We think it is more important to look at the outcomes achieved instead.’ Yes, agreed, these people coming from nowhere, never lived here before, making such unruly comments on our domestic affairs and so critical and simplistic some more.
Let me just make one quote from the Oxfam report as reported in thenewspaper to support a case against the unstinting and unfair criticism of this best run state in the world. ‘Singapore could tackle inequality at home by spending more, strengthening labour rights and enacting anti discrimination laws.’
But Singapore has been spending a lot more to help the poor students, including many from other countries to study in our world best schools, polytechnics and universities, with scholarships covering fees, living expenses and housing. This is in the tune of several billions over the years. How much more must Singapore spend before Oxfam is satisified? The govt even legislated to spend the poor people’s life savings, otherwise they would not spend, to protect them from health and life expectancy problems. This money spent the Oxfam sure would not know. They must add this as part of the social spending to help the poor, to level up the income inequality.
As for strengthening the labour movements and labour rights, how much more is needed when the govt assigned the PM to be to head the labour movement? This is damn powerful ok, to protect and to fight for the workers’ rights and interests. No country would put such a high power minister to work for the workers. So the comment by the Oxfam report is too simplistic or ignorant.
More anti discrimination laws? On what, sexual inequality or wealth inequality? Ok, sexual inequality is now gaining support, especially for the LGBTs. Give the govt some time and all sexes and bisexuals will be equal, no more discrimination. Oh wait a minute, I read about this on sexual inequality, ‘Singapore has no equal pay or non discrimination laws for women, its laws on rape and sexual harassment are inadequate and there is no minimum wage except for cleaners and security guards.’ Holy cow, where did this come from? See how many women ministers we have and think the top salary earner in Singapore is a woman. Ok, I have no statistic to back this up. Caveat.
Laws on rape? Come on, Singapore is virtually free of rape crimes against women. Why do you need more laws on this when it is quite irrelevant? You need more laws on rape if the country is infested with rapists, not safe, safe Singapore.
As for wealth inequality, the best legal provision is the abolishment of estate duty so that everyone can inherit their homes after the death of the owner of the estate. Rich or poor, all are treated as equal. Poor Singaporeans need not lose their estate as a result of death, and can pass on their HDB flats to their descendants forever.
See how simplistic is the Oxfam report? They did not know that our poor are so rich and happy that all the poor in the whole world would want to be poor in Singapore. This is a fact, a spoken fact. Why is it a spoken fact? Because no one in Singapore dispute this fact when spoken.
Whew. I said my piece for Singapore. I defended Singapore’s integrity.
With such bad ranking on income inequality, this report rightly deserves to be rejected and dismissed. How could Singapore be lying so low down there in the company of Laos and not right up there with the top European countries? Must be very biased, or yes, simplistic and prescriptive. And Minister Desmond Lee was also unhappy with the report and was offended. He said, ‘We think it is more important to look at the outcomes achieved instead.’ Yes, agreed, these people coming from nowhere, never lived here before, making such unruly comments on our domestic affairs and so critical and simplistic some more.
Let me just make one quote from the Oxfam report as reported in thenewspaper to support a case against the unstinting and unfair criticism of this best run state in the world. ‘Singapore could tackle inequality at home by spending more, strengthening labour rights and enacting anti discrimination laws.’
But Singapore has been spending a lot more to help the poor students, including many from other countries to study in our world best schools, polytechnics and universities, with scholarships covering fees, living expenses and housing. This is in the tune of several billions over the years. How much more must Singapore spend before Oxfam is satisified? The govt even legislated to spend the poor people’s life savings, otherwise they would not spend, to protect them from health and life expectancy problems. This money spent the Oxfam sure would not know. They must add this as part of the social spending to help the poor, to level up the income inequality.
As for strengthening the labour movements and labour rights, how much more is needed when the govt assigned the PM to be to head the labour movement? This is damn powerful ok, to protect and to fight for the workers’ rights and interests. No country would put such a high power minister to work for the workers. So the comment by the Oxfam report is too simplistic or ignorant.
More anti discrimination laws? On what, sexual inequality or wealth inequality? Ok, sexual inequality is now gaining support, especially for the LGBTs. Give the govt some time and all sexes and bisexuals will be equal, no more discrimination. Oh wait a minute, I read about this on sexual inequality, ‘Singapore has no equal pay or non discrimination laws for women, its laws on rape and sexual harassment are inadequate and there is no minimum wage except for cleaners and security guards.’ Holy cow, where did this come from? See how many women ministers we have and think the top salary earner in Singapore is a woman. Ok, I have no statistic to back this up. Caveat.
Laws on rape? Come on, Singapore is virtually free of rape crimes against women. Why do you need more laws on this when it is quite irrelevant? You need more laws on rape if the country is infested with rapists, not safe, safe Singapore.
As for wealth inequality, the best legal provision is the abolishment of estate duty so that everyone can inherit their homes after the death of the owner of the estate. Rich or poor, all are treated as equal. Poor Singaporeans need not lose their estate as a result of death, and can pass on their HDB flats to their descendants forever.
See how simplistic is the Oxfam report? They did not know that our poor are so rich and happy that all the poor in the whole world would want to be poor in Singapore. This is a fact, a spoken fact. Why is it a spoken fact? Because no one in Singapore dispute this fact when spoken.
Whew. I said my piece for Singapore. I defended Singapore’s integrity.
10/10/2018
The AHTC case and the flaws of switching management
It is so obvious that the problems facing the AHTC case need not arise
and must/would not be allowed to be repeated if the management of town
councils remains with a statutory board or ministry ran by civil
servants. The management of a town council, the complexity and
operational details involved, and the importance of such services
remaining in tact and continuou, demand that it must be run by a
permanent body of staff. It cannot be otherwise.
The AHTC case highlighted the problems and flaws and unnecessary troublesome administrative handling over of funds, records, duties and responsibilities that could not be efficiently transferred from one management to another over a short spell of time. Such procedures and processes, the involvement of funds and monetary matters, necessitate very careful, arduous and detailed scrutiny and inspection before a transfer can take place. And worse, under the politicized nature of the system, when a different and often unfriendly party won an election and having to take over the function and running of a town council, in a way exposing the predecessor’s work to be scrutinized for wrongdoings, make the transfer of responsibility a hostile takeover with both parties placed in a very difficult and confrontational position. How could such a belligerent and antagonistic system be to the interest of the residents that expect a public service to continue to run efficiently, smoothly and without disruption?
When a political party takes over the running of a state after winning a general election, all the staff of ministries and stats boards remain in tact, with all the systems and procedures, including software and hardware, remain practically unchanged until such time when the new govt is ready to make changes. The services of the respective ministries and stats boards will not be affected in anyway or in any serious ways. Assuming the same terms of changing all the staff and systems in ministries should take place like the changing of the guards in the town councils, there is no way the new govt can start to administer a country and all its ministries and stats boards given the time constraints.
The expectation of a new town council management to start operating and running a town council almost immediately is insane. An incoming town council could insist that all the documents, accounts and system be proper and free from errors before taking over and this would lead to an endless explanation and bickering of what is being handed over. This is simply plain impossible and unacceptable.
It is time the town councils be returned to be managed permanently and continuously by a stats board with permanent staff and system for the good of the residents. No one or party or politician need to be put through running a town council to prove themselves to be able to run a country. This is a red herring, a myth. It does not happen in any other country and historically, new govts are form in democratic countries after winning an election with people that came from all walks of life except running a country and they ran the country and doing no less better than people who had the experience of running town councils.
One does not have to run a small company to run a big company or organization. Running a small company or organization like a town council has very little relevance to running a country. If that is the critical experience to run a country successfully, then the first generation of leaders would have failed or must fail. They did not, without the experience of running town councils. So did the leaders of all the countries in the whole wide world.
This town council thing must be put right for the good of the people and country. All the political bickering is unnecessary, stressful, silly and a waste of public funds and resources that could be put to better use and more important things.
The AHTC case highlighted the problems and flaws and unnecessary troublesome administrative handling over of funds, records, duties and responsibilities that could not be efficiently transferred from one management to another over a short spell of time. Such procedures and processes, the involvement of funds and monetary matters, necessitate very careful, arduous and detailed scrutiny and inspection before a transfer can take place. And worse, under the politicized nature of the system, when a different and often unfriendly party won an election and having to take over the function and running of a town council, in a way exposing the predecessor’s work to be scrutinized for wrongdoings, make the transfer of responsibility a hostile takeover with both parties placed in a very difficult and confrontational position. How could such a belligerent and antagonistic system be to the interest of the residents that expect a public service to continue to run efficiently, smoothly and without disruption?
When a political party takes over the running of a state after winning a general election, all the staff of ministries and stats boards remain in tact, with all the systems and procedures, including software and hardware, remain practically unchanged until such time when the new govt is ready to make changes. The services of the respective ministries and stats boards will not be affected in anyway or in any serious ways. Assuming the same terms of changing all the staff and systems in ministries should take place like the changing of the guards in the town councils, there is no way the new govt can start to administer a country and all its ministries and stats boards given the time constraints.
The expectation of a new town council management to start operating and running a town council almost immediately is insane. An incoming town council could insist that all the documents, accounts and system be proper and free from errors before taking over and this would lead to an endless explanation and bickering of what is being handed over. This is simply plain impossible and unacceptable.
It is time the town councils be returned to be managed permanently and continuously by a stats board with permanent staff and system for the good of the residents. No one or party or politician need to be put through running a town council to prove themselves to be able to run a country. This is a red herring, a myth. It does not happen in any other country and historically, new govts are form in democratic countries after winning an election with people that came from all walks of life except running a country and they ran the country and doing no less better than people who had the experience of running town councils.
One does not have to run a small company to run a big company or organization. Running a small company or organization like a town council has very little relevance to running a country. If that is the critical experience to run a country successfully, then the first generation of leaders would have failed or must fail. They did not, without the experience of running town councils. So did the leaders of all the countries in the whole wide world.
This town council thing must be put right for the good of the people and country. All the political bickering is unnecessary, stressful, silly and a waste of public funds and resources that could be put to better use and more important things.
10/09/2018
Abuse of power and the media to maintain dominance
The Evil American Empire has been abusing everything under the law, with their superior military power and control of the western media and media of little USAs to accuse, demonise and attack their enemies just to hold on to their position as the unchallenged dominant world power.
The strategy is very simple, just keep on accusing the enemies, demonise them using the main media, and attack them with their superior military might to destroy their enemies. These are the things the Americans are doing. The world's biggest war criminal, killing hundreds of thousands all over the world, but accusing every country they regard as enemies of war crimes, in Eastern Europe, in Africa, in Sri Lanka, in Myanmar and in Latin America. They also accused all these countries of violating human rights when they were the one that were the worst violator of human rights in the past and in present times. And sickeningly they awarded themselves under the slightest pretext with Nobel Peace Prize while conducting wars, escalating wars, and starting wars.
They blame other countries of militarisation, like China in the SC Sea when they set up more than 1,000 military bases all over the world, militarising the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean with nuclear bombs and sending warships, warplanes and Special Forces to threaten other countries. They accuse others of currency manipulation, of money laundering, when the American govt and American banks were the biggest culprits of such criminal activities.
They accuse China of settling Asian and African countries with debts when they were the ones that were doing so and with higher interest rates than China through IMF and the World Bank.
For decades they have been conducting world wide espionage, spying and eave droppings of communication lines, and cyber attacks and accused others of doing it as if they are innocent of such covert operations.
They support, finance, arm and train terrorist organisations and accused others of doing so.
They coerce, pressure, threaten countries all over the world with military invasion, regime change, trade sanctions and everything you can name of but accused other countries of doing so.
They meddle and interfere with the domestic affairs and politics of every country but accusing others of meddling with American domestic politics.
They conduct smear campaigns against countries and their leader when they and their leaders were the worst scoundrels, groping women, sexual harassment, sexual violation, misconduct, blow job in the White House, violence etc etc.
I could go on and on. The main purpose of this dirty strategy is to attack and keep the enemies busy defending and have no time to hit back or to expose the dirt and shit of the Americans. The enemies would be so bogged down trying to clear their names and have no time to attack the Evil Empire on all their crimes against humanity, abuse of power, disregarding the rule of law and using the media to spread fake news and false news and disinformation about their enemies.
The Evil Empire is the Evil Empire and it is a matter of time before the wheel of fortune turns against them and bring them down on their knees. You can bluff some people some of the time but not all the people all the time. When the Evil Empire loses its power, it is a matter of when, they will pay for their abuses of power and media and for crimes against humanity.
The strategy is very simple, just keep on accusing the enemies, demonise them using the main media, and attack them with their superior military might to destroy their enemies. These are the things the Americans are doing. The world's biggest war criminal, killing hundreds of thousands all over the world, but accusing every country they regard as enemies of war crimes, in Eastern Europe, in Africa, in Sri Lanka, in Myanmar and in Latin America. They also accused all these countries of violating human rights when they were the one that were the worst violator of human rights in the past and in present times. And sickeningly they awarded themselves under the slightest pretext with Nobel Peace Prize while conducting wars, escalating wars, and starting wars.
They blame other countries of militarisation, like China in the SC Sea when they set up more than 1,000 military bases all over the world, militarising the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean with nuclear bombs and sending warships, warplanes and Special Forces to threaten other countries. They accuse others of currency manipulation, of money laundering, when the American govt and American banks were the biggest culprits of such criminal activities.
They accuse China of settling Asian and African countries with debts when they were the ones that were doing so and with higher interest rates than China through IMF and the World Bank.
For decades they have been conducting world wide espionage, spying and eave droppings of communication lines, and cyber attacks and accused others of doing it as if they are innocent of such covert operations.
They support, finance, arm and train terrorist organisations and accused others of doing so.
They coerce, pressure, threaten countries all over the world with military invasion, regime change, trade sanctions and everything you can name of but accused other countries of doing so.
They meddle and interfere with the domestic affairs and politics of every country but accusing others of meddling with American domestic politics.
They conduct smear campaigns against countries and their leader when they and their leaders were the worst scoundrels, groping women, sexual harassment, sexual violation, misconduct, blow job in the White House, violence etc etc.
I could go on and on. The main purpose of this dirty strategy is to attack and keep the enemies busy defending and have no time to hit back or to expose the dirt and shit of the Americans. The enemies would be so bogged down trying to clear their names and have no time to attack the Evil Empire on all their crimes against humanity, abuse of power, disregarding the rule of law and using the media to spread fake news and false news and disinformation about their enemies.
The Evil Empire is the Evil Empire and it is a matter of time before the wheel of fortune turns against them and bring them down on their knees. You can bluff some people some of the time but not all the people all the time. When the Evil Empire loses its power, it is a matter of when, they will pay for their abuses of power and media and for crimes against humanity.
10/08/2018
AHTC lawsuit - A landmark case in the making
Multimillion-dollar civil suits against 3 Workers’ Party MPs go to trial
The suits were brought against three
Workers' Party MPs Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh as well
as others, over alleged improper payments amounting to millions of
dollars....
An 'egregious, cavalier misuse of public funds': Town council lawyers rip into Workers' Party leaders
An 'egregious, cavalier misuse of public funds': Town council lawyers rip into Workers' Party leaders
Later
in the afternoon, lawyers for the three MPs and AHTC councillors Chua
Zhi Hon and Kenneth Foo stressed that at all times, the five were acting
honestly and in “good faith”. The five are represented by Tan Rajah
& Cheah.
“Various allegations have been made ... we have our responses to all those,” said lawyer Chelva Retnam Rajah in court. “At the heart of all our actions is the fact that at all times ... They were acting in good faith, acting honestly and for the purposes of the Town Councils Act in all their actions.”
Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/workers-party-trial-ahtc-prptc-lawsuits-low-pritam-sylvia-10793984
Three leaders of Singapore’s leading opposition party Workers’ Party will have to defend themselves in court today over (Oct 5) alleged mishandling of S$33 million in town council funding. The civil suit was lodged by the ruling party PAP-controlled town councils – through a fake “independent panel” filled with government cronies – after the police cleared the opposition MPs of criminal wrongdoings.
It is unknown who is sitting in the “independent panel” appointed by the ruling party dictatorship....thestatestimes
“Various allegations have been made ... we have our responses to all those,” said lawyer Chelva Retnam Rajah in court. “At the heart of all our actions is the fact that at all times ... They were acting in good faith, acting honestly and for the purposes of the Town Councils Act in all their actions.”
Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/workers-party-trial-ahtc-prptc-lawsuits-low-pritam-sylvia-10793984
Three leaders of Singapore’s leading opposition party Workers’ Party will have to defend themselves in court today over (Oct 5) alleged mishandling of S$33 million in town council funding. The civil suit was lodged by the ruling party PAP-controlled town councils – through a fake “independent panel” filled with government cronies – after the police cleared the opposition MPs of criminal wrongdoings.
It is unknown who is sitting in the “independent panel” appointed by the ruling party dictatorship....thestatestimes
Above are two quotations, one from Channelnewsasia and the other from thestatestimes.
Just reading them prompted me to ask a few questions. One who were the people filing the civil suits against the WP? What were the grounds that gave them the privilege or right to file a civil suit against a state organisation, a legal entity, constituted under a democratic system of govt? The AHTC may be run by the WP, an opposition party, but it is a legally constituted organisation, not a private organisation, not a social organisation or a NGO or a commercial organisation.
As this is allowed in this case, it is going to set a precedent for anyone to sue any govt organisations under the same pretext, especially town councils and more.
The second point that came out from thestatestimes is the ground for defence put up by the defence lawyers, ie 'They were acting in good faith, acting honestly and for the purposes of the Town Councils Act in all their actions.' This defence is against the charge for 'egregious, cavalier misuse of public funds'.
If this defence cannot hold, then in future, anyone being charged for the same egregious, cavalier misuse of public funds would also not be able to get away using this defence of acting in good faith, acting honestly and acting legally, as the WP representatives were acting legally too.
If this defence holds, then in future anyone acting in good faith, honestly and legally, could get away with 'egregious and cavalier misuse of public funds'.
The decision and judgement of the court would have far reaching consequences as whatever the court decides, it would become judicial precedents to be quoted in the future.
I repeat the three points being put before the court.
1. Anyone can sue any legally constituted state organisation, especially town councils...
2. For egregious and cavalier misuse of public funds
3. Acting in good faith, honestly and legally is or is not a ground for defence.
PS. I have not seen the names of the people filing the suit against AHTC. Have they been made public or is this not to be made public, anonymous?
Latest Views of DPRK - video
video - Life in DPRK (North Korea)
Latest, First-personal glimpses into the different shades of life in Pyongyang, capital city of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) or "North Korea" by the First DPRK Business Mission from Singapore.
Video too big to upload. Watch HERE –
Watch
the video as you read the related Articles. ENJOY ...!
Related:
Also
HERE @ MySingapore News:
.
10/07/2018
PM succession issue and the resilience of the Civil Service
Hsien Loong has said that he is going to retire soon. 5 or 6 potential
PMs have been named but no one has stood out yet as the crown prince.
With time running out fast, it looks like the next PM is not going to
have much time for apprenticeship compares to the time taken by Chok
Tong and Hsien Loong. One had about 5 years and the other more than 10
years. For the scholars who would like to do studies on the
effectiveness of a Singapore PM measured against the time of
apprenticeship, there are some empirical data to prove their case. For
that they may want to throw in LKY and his lack of apprenticeship into
the study, maybe as a placebo effect. Is there any correlation between
performance and effectiveness against the time under apprenticeship? How
relevant is apprenticeship to the performance of a PM?
Some people may be wondering why no one has stood out so far as the crown prince, the PM elect among the appointees? Is it that they are not good enough, or all about the same, too difficult to choose who is the better candidate? There is another unspoken question that no one dares to ask. What if none of them are better than their seniors like the two DPMs or Khaw Boon Wan, Ng Eng Hen or Shanmugam or Lim Swee Say for that matter? Another question, do the senior ministers respect the newly appointed PM elects?
I have been posing many questions on this issue without giving any answers as no one has the right answers and everyone will have his own view of the issue in discussion. What if no one is found good enough or identified when Hsien Loong quits as PM, I mean retires as PM suddenly? Would there be a leadership crisis? Would the govt ground to a halt? Boh cheng hu?
Some fearmongers may want to raise an alarm. How can the country survive without a PM? It must be critical and a crisis situation and there will be a loss of confidence in the country. It would be panic station. Jiat lat.
If such a situation occurs when no one is filling in as PM and everyone is second guessing and there is a power struggle, what would happen to Singapore? Would the police force or the armed forces stop functioning? Would the PUB stop operating? Would the HDB stop all its services? Would the hospitals stop treating the sick? Would the judicial system stand down? Would the MRT stop running, etc, etc?
I think nothing of these would happen. All the ministries and stats boards and public and private organizations would function as per normal, at least for a few months, until the next PM is found. The govt, the ministries, the Civil Service will not grind to a halt. We have built a very efficient and resilient system that would go on running, auto pilot in a way, without a PM or even a political govt in charge for a while. The country would not turn into chaos overnight unless there is a coup.
I am presuming that our Civil Service is not a house of cards that cannot function without a political party lording over it, at least during an interim period. Many of the top civil servants are better educated and trained and experience than the boys and girls in politics.
What do you think?
Some people may be wondering why no one has stood out so far as the crown prince, the PM elect among the appointees? Is it that they are not good enough, or all about the same, too difficult to choose who is the better candidate? There is another unspoken question that no one dares to ask. What if none of them are better than their seniors like the two DPMs or Khaw Boon Wan, Ng Eng Hen or Shanmugam or Lim Swee Say for that matter? Another question, do the senior ministers respect the newly appointed PM elects?
I have been posing many questions on this issue without giving any answers as no one has the right answers and everyone will have his own view of the issue in discussion. What if no one is found good enough or identified when Hsien Loong quits as PM, I mean retires as PM suddenly? Would there be a leadership crisis? Would the govt ground to a halt? Boh cheng hu?
Some fearmongers may want to raise an alarm. How can the country survive without a PM? It must be critical and a crisis situation and there will be a loss of confidence in the country. It would be panic station. Jiat lat.
If such a situation occurs when no one is filling in as PM and everyone is second guessing and there is a power struggle, what would happen to Singapore? Would the police force or the armed forces stop functioning? Would the PUB stop operating? Would the HDB stop all its services? Would the hospitals stop treating the sick? Would the judicial system stand down? Would the MRT stop running, etc, etc?
I think nothing of these would happen. All the ministries and stats boards and public and private organizations would function as per normal, at least for a few months, until the next PM is found. The govt, the ministries, the Civil Service will not grind to a halt. We have built a very efficient and resilient system that would go on running, auto pilot in a way, without a PM or even a political govt in charge for a while. The country would not turn into chaos overnight unless there is a coup.
I am presuming that our Civil Service is not a house of cards that cannot function without a political party lording over it, at least during an interim period. Many of the top civil servants are better educated and trained and experience than the boys and girls in politics.
What do you think?
10/06/2018
President called prostitutes, Supreme Court judge in sexual assaults
Trump has been exposed several times for calling prostitutes and for
groping the fairer sex. These could be quite normal activities of
individual indiscretion and no one would pay much attention on such
private matters. But the president of the USA…? And his nominee to the
Supreme Court judge bench has been accused and exposed for sexual
assaults and related activities, revealed in public hearings and
reported in the mass media.
What is striking in both cases is the lack of shame in both individuals in high offices with not thinking that they are still fit for public office. And what is also striking is that the whole American society did not see anything wrong or offensive in these acts committed by their leaders, a president and another going to be a Supreme Court judge, listening to cases on injustice, crimes, immorality, sexual offences etc etc. And they have been fabricating such sordid stories about Kim Jong Un and his late father of womanising to discredit them as unfit for public office.
Still not getting it? Ok, just imagine that one is the president or PM of Singapore and the other is going to be appointed to our very own Supreme Court. How would the Singaporeans and the mass media here react to them? A speaker and an MP had resigned and faded away quietly.
In the USA, the two individuals are strutting around with no sense of guilt or shame. It is like a new normal, nothing unusual, nothing undesirable, nothing to fuzz about. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the characters of these two men in high offices. They are fighting to stay in high office despite the revelations in public hearings.
In the little red dot, even a legal divorce would not speak well in some people’s minds. Personal indiscretion is an absolute no no. No scandal is allowed if one is to hold public office. Maybe this is one of the reasons why our political leaders and leaders in high offices are paid so highly and so highly regarded, like immortals, no smears.
Are the American way of life and moral values something that we should emulate as the desirable way going forward? Would Singaporeans accept our people in high offices, in public offices, to have similar indiscretions as Trump and Kavanaugh?
What do you think?
What is striking in both cases is the lack of shame in both individuals in high offices with not thinking that they are still fit for public office. And what is also striking is that the whole American society did not see anything wrong or offensive in these acts committed by their leaders, a president and another going to be a Supreme Court judge, listening to cases on injustice, crimes, immorality, sexual offences etc etc. And they have been fabricating such sordid stories about Kim Jong Un and his late father of womanising to discredit them as unfit for public office.
Still not getting it? Ok, just imagine that one is the president or PM of Singapore and the other is going to be appointed to our very own Supreme Court. How would the Singaporeans and the mass media here react to them? A speaker and an MP had resigned and faded away quietly.
In the USA, the two individuals are strutting around with no sense of guilt or shame. It is like a new normal, nothing unusual, nothing undesirable, nothing to fuzz about. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the characters of these two men in high offices. They are fighting to stay in high office despite the revelations in public hearings.
In the little red dot, even a legal divorce would not speak well in some people’s minds. Personal indiscretion is an absolute no no. No scandal is allowed if one is to hold public office. Maybe this is one of the reasons why our political leaders and leaders in high offices are paid so highly and so highly regarded, like immortals, no smears.
Are the American way of life and moral values something that we should emulate as the desirable way going forward? Would Singaporeans accept our people in high offices, in public offices, to have similar indiscretions as Trump and Kavanaugh?
What do you think?
10/05/2018
Scoot Mayday, RSAF F15 scrambled
Man fined $4,500 for Scoot bomb hoax. This was the headline of
thenewpaper yesterday. When I read the content I could not even cry,
could not even laugh. My jaw dropped in disbelief. This is another
classic story of stupidity has no cure for the record. I will just state
the facts as reported in thenewpaper and let you guys wonder what it
was all about.
A man, Hsu Chun Meng, was flying off to HatYai on a Scoot flight. His hand luggage was too big to fit into the overhead luggage compartment and the stewardess told him he had to check in his baggage. She also asked him if he had any prohibited items in the bag. He replied, ‘Nothing, only bombs.’ The stewardess stared at him and he replied, ‘No bomb lah. Joking. How can it be?’
When the plane was about to take off, the stewardess reported the incident to the cabin crew in charge. The latter tried to contact the captain but unable to do so as the flight was about to take off and the cockpit door was locked.
She only managed to talk to the captain after take off and the captain followed the established protocol, made a Mayday call and flew the aircraft back to Singapore. The plane was carrying 179 passengers. A fighter aircraft was scrambled to escort it back.
The man was subsequently charged and fined $4,500 for the bomb hoax.
These were the facts. Over to you guys. Laugh if you can, cry if you want.
Stupidity has no cure? What do you think?
Key points. If it was a real bomb and not a hoax. If it was a joke….
A man, Hsu Chun Meng, was flying off to HatYai on a Scoot flight. His hand luggage was too big to fit into the overhead luggage compartment and the stewardess told him he had to check in his baggage. She also asked him if he had any prohibited items in the bag. He replied, ‘Nothing, only bombs.’ The stewardess stared at him and he replied, ‘No bomb lah. Joking. How can it be?’
When the plane was about to take off, the stewardess reported the incident to the cabin crew in charge. The latter tried to contact the captain but unable to do so as the flight was about to take off and the cockpit door was locked.
She only managed to talk to the captain after take off and the captain followed the established protocol, made a Mayday call and flew the aircraft back to Singapore. The plane was carrying 179 passengers. A fighter aircraft was scrambled to escort it back.
The man was subsequently charged and fined $4,500 for the bomb hoax.
These were the facts. Over to you guys. Laugh if you can, cry if you want.
Stupidity has no cure? What do you think?
Key points. If it was a real bomb and not a hoax. If it was a joke….
10/04/2018
Govt hospital as profit making business
I wrote about this subject many years back, that with the increasing
medical fees and profits in the health business many govt doctors and
specialists would be attracted to leave for the private sector to make
their millions. The smell of money is intoxicating. And there is no need
to utter silly things like big sacrifices. This is only human nature.
Everyone in any profession would be attracted and want to make as much
money as they could. Staying and working in the govt hospitals would no
longer be a good choice except for those that value their contribution
to the bigger good of society and patients more than money making.
As such it would be expedient and practical for some sort of arrangement or combination to allow govt hospital doctors and specialists to enjoy some monetary perks by offering their expertise to private patients at market rate. Govt hospitals could set aside a certain percentage of hospital beds and doctors/specialists for this purpose to take a share of the medical tourism business.
A main benefit for such an arrangement is to retain more doctors/specialists in govt hospitals as otherwise they would leave for the more rewarding private sector. Another benefit is that the profits generated could be used to lower the cost of subsidised patients in govt hospitals. In this way, both the doctors/specialists and subsidized patients would be winners, and lesser staff turnover problems for govt hospitals. The govt doctors and specialists would be recognized and rewarded to some extent for their skills and expertise without having to envy their rich peers in the private sectors.
The caveat is that there must be enough capacity in govt hospitals to take care of full paying private patients and the general public on subsidized rates. This is basic in managing skills. Carefully tweaked this could be a win win solution for all parties.
I just read in theindependent that this scheme was actually in practice for a number of years but would be stopped because of the short supply of beds in govt hospitals. This is from theindependent.sg, ‘After nearly a decade of not banning such practices, MOH has now told hospitals that they are no longer allowed to “actively market themselves to foreign patients” since the priority of public healthcare institutions must be to serve Singaporeans’ healthcare needs.
MOH’s decision comes after the public hospital bed crunch across Singapore, in recent years.
In one notable case in 2014, CGH pitched tents on its hospital grounds to accommodate patients after reaching 100 per cent bed occupancy and despite renting wards from private hospitals to hold patients….’
With the termination of this arrangement, I think it would become a lose lose situation for all. And the cause of it, not enough hospital beds. Why? Don’t they plan ahead in view of the greater demands for hospital beds and services? I can think of the bicycle sharing schemes, a good scheme but short in planning. They never cater for more bicycle parking lots and regulations to stop littering of bicycles everywhere.
When there is high demand for such medical services, why don’t they build more hospitals and provide more beds? Not so simple? KNN, super talents with super out of this world pay cannot find a better solution than just simply stopping a good scheme that benefits everyone, including govt revenue, cannot plan ahead? This business is high value added, good profits, anytime better than promoting more kopitiams and hawker centres for low and semi skill labour and low returns that befit third world countries aspirations, or building more shopping centres.
Medical tourism is good business, highly reputable and highly desirable business requiring high skilled professionals, and a little planning and foresight could avoid this simple logistic problem of demand and supply.
What do you think?
As such it would be expedient and practical for some sort of arrangement or combination to allow govt hospital doctors and specialists to enjoy some monetary perks by offering their expertise to private patients at market rate. Govt hospitals could set aside a certain percentage of hospital beds and doctors/specialists for this purpose to take a share of the medical tourism business.
A main benefit for such an arrangement is to retain more doctors/specialists in govt hospitals as otherwise they would leave for the more rewarding private sector. Another benefit is that the profits generated could be used to lower the cost of subsidised patients in govt hospitals. In this way, both the doctors/specialists and subsidized patients would be winners, and lesser staff turnover problems for govt hospitals. The govt doctors and specialists would be recognized and rewarded to some extent for their skills and expertise without having to envy their rich peers in the private sectors.
The caveat is that there must be enough capacity in govt hospitals to take care of full paying private patients and the general public on subsidized rates. This is basic in managing skills. Carefully tweaked this could be a win win solution for all parties.
I just read in theindependent that this scheme was actually in practice for a number of years but would be stopped because of the short supply of beds in govt hospitals. This is from theindependent.sg, ‘After nearly a decade of not banning such practices, MOH has now told hospitals that they are no longer allowed to “actively market themselves to foreign patients” since the priority of public healthcare institutions must be to serve Singaporeans’ healthcare needs.
MOH’s decision comes after the public hospital bed crunch across Singapore, in recent years.
In one notable case in 2014, CGH pitched tents on its hospital grounds to accommodate patients after reaching 100 per cent bed occupancy and despite renting wards from private hospitals to hold patients….’
With the termination of this arrangement, I think it would become a lose lose situation for all. And the cause of it, not enough hospital beds. Why? Don’t they plan ahead in view of the greater demands for hospital beds and services? I can think of the bicycle sharing schemes, a good scheme but short in planning. They never cater for more bicycle parking lots and regulations to stop littering of bicycles everywhere.
When there is high demand for such medical services, why don’t they build more hospitals and provide more beds? Not so simple? KNN, super talents with super out of this world pay cannot find a better solution than just simply stopping a good scheme that benefits everyone, including govt revenue, cannot plan ahead? This business is high value added, good profits, anytime better than promoting more kopitiams and hawker centres for low and semi skill labour and low returns that befit third world countries aspirations, or building more shopping centres.
Medical tourism is good business, highly reputable and highly desirable business requiring high skilled professionals, and a little planning and foresight could avoid this simple logistic problem of demand and supply.
What do you think?
10/03/2018
Singapore at a cross road choosing between China and India
The last decade or so after the demise of LKY, Singapore has chosen to
follow the Americans and played the role of little USAs, dancing like
little puppets on a string, depending on which string the Americans were
pulling. It has a lot of advantages, primarily it gave Singapore the
luxury of punching above its weight, sitting on the shoulder of American
might. Singapore was so arrogant and confident that with the Americans
behind, it could kick anyone it liked, behaving like a spoilt brat.
China was no exception and treated just like another state to be told off, to be challenged with total disrespect as if Singapore was an equal to China’s economic and military might. The blaring at China to follow the dubious ruling of the so called ‘UN backed’ funny private court formed by one party on the South China Sea dispute was the last straw, and China hit back. It was a rude awakening, that small country could not anyhow barked at big powers and thought it could get away with it. The reality was so shocking to those that advocated punching above its weight and totally relied on and be dependent on the Americans for its security concerns. This blind belief in American power was given a rough jolt and a thorough review on this policy was undertaken. Singapore paid a heavy price for listening to wrong advice from people who had fallen asleep and did not know what was happening in the world of big power relations, people who believed in their own delusion of greatness.
The Americans were no longer the Americans they used to know. The China was no longer the China they knew. It was late than never to wake up to the new reality. The world has changed while Singapore happily took a nap, thinking that all was well, all was the same.
Subsequent to the new developments and a new awakening, Singapore took a deep breath and found that it has to reshape its position vis a vis the new balance of power. The American way is no longer the way to a safe and secure future. The belligerent and warring path of the evil Empire would only drag Singapore into more troubles and enmeshed in disputes and wars that it needed not be involved. There is a need for rebalancing and to take a new policy forward for the good of Singapore. Putting all its eggs into the American basket is not the right way or safe way going forward.
The Americans’ isolationist and unilateral policies of going alone and thinking American first policy make things clearer and easier for Singapore to change direction. Free trade, multilateralism and rule of law are what were good for Singapore and what Singapore stood for. But whither Singapore if it stops taking sides with the Americans blindly to create trouble all over the world, starting wars, engaging in wars and in conspiracies and in destabilizing countries and regions?
The two rising Asian powers in India and China were beckoning. Come join us, we are the future super powers. Should Singapore join the Indian camp and be as powerful and prosperous as India as India rises to become the next super power, or should Singapore join the Chinese growth engine and be part of the Chinese plan to rebuild the world? Would Singapore become more like India or more like China as it realigns its policies with the next winning side, the next super power after Pax Americana?
PS. If Chok Tong is still the PM, the direction is very clear. He is very proud of the CECA and his Indian fever and the demography of Singapore is likely to change.
As for Hsien Loong, after years of listening to the pro USA and Indian camp and antagonizing China, leading to the Terrex Incident, his position is now wavering. On one hand he is trying to get into the BRI band wagon and chirping that Sino Singapore relations are very good and Singapore must be neutral in big power rivalry. On the other hand, the attack on China continues in the main media with many biased and anti China articles published almost daily.
Where would Singapore be heading? Would Singapore become more like Mumbai or Shanghai?
China was no exception and treated just like another state to be told off, to be challenged with total disrespect as if Singapore was an equal to China’s economic and military might. The blaring at China to follow the dubious ruling of the so called ‘UN backed’ funny private court formed by one party on the South China Sea dispute was the last straw, and China hit back. It was a rude awakening, that small country could not anyhow barked at big powers and thought it could get away with it. The reality was so shocking to those that advocated punching above its weight and totally relied on and be dependent on the Americans for its security concerns. This blind belief in American power was given a rough jolt and a thorough review on this policy was undertaken. Singapore paid a heavy price for listening to wrong advice from people who had fallen asleep and did not know what was happening in the world of big power relations, people who believed in their own delusion of greatness.
The Americans were no longer the Americans they used to know. The China was no longer the China they knew. It was late than never to wake up to the new reality. The world has changed while Singapore happily took a nap, thinking that all was well, all was the same.
Subsequent to the new developments and a new awakening, Singapore took a deep breath and found that it has to reshape its position vis a vis the new balance of power. The American way is no longer the way to a safe and secure future. The belligerent and warring path of the evil Empire would only drag Singapore into more troubles and enmeshed in disputes and wars that it needed not be involved. There is a need for rebalancing and to take a new policy forward for the good of Singapore. Putting all its eggs into the American basket is not the right way or safe way going forward.
The Americans’ isolationist and unilateral policies of going alone and thinking American first policy make things clearer and easier for Singapore to change direction. Free trade, multilateralism and rule of law are what were good for Singapore and what Singapore stood for. But whither Singapore if it stops taking sides with the Americans blindly to create trouble all over the world, starting wars, engaging in wars and in conspiracies and in destabilizing countries and regions?
The two rising Asian powers in India and China were beckoning. Come join us, we are the future super powers. Should Singapore join the Indian camp and be as powerful and prosperous as India as India rises to become the next super power, or should Singapore join the Chinese growth engine and be part of the Chinese plan to rebuild the world? Would Singapore become more like India or more like China as it realigns its policies with the next winning side, the next super power after Pax Americana?
PS. If Chok Tong is still the PM, the direction is very clear. He is very proud of the CECA and his Indian fever and the demography of Singapore is likely to change.
As for Hsien Loong, after years of listening to the pro USA and Indian camp and antagonizing China, leading to the Terrex Incident, his position is now wavering. On one hand he is trying to get into the BRI band wagon and chirping that Sino Singapore relations are very good and Singapore must be neutral in big power rivalry. On the other hand, the attack on China continues in the main media with many biased and anti China articles published almost daily.
Where would Singapore be heading? Would Singapore become more like Mumbai or Shanghai?
10/02/2018
The forces for the abolishment of S377A gaining momentum
Read in YahooNews that a former ST editor by the name of Alan John is calling the people to take a stand for secularism when religious people use religion to impose their values on the secular. He posted an article in in face book and reported in coconuts.com titled, Former ST editor highlights the importance of standing up for secularism in the face of religious pressure.
This debate arising from the movement calling for the abolition of an 'outdated' law that forbids sex between men is seeing people taking sides for and against the law. Many prominent and eminent and influential elite and natural aristocrats have joint forces with the anti S377A law, calling for its abolition. The religious groups are also up in arms against this threat to the natural order of things, the natural order of creation. With the growing presence of LGBTs, the old natural order of things is looking like unnatural and the new natural order of things is like everything LGBT. So what is the natural order of things?
At the moment the majority is belongs to the old natural order of things. What if the LGBTs become a majority and the new natural order of things? We do not really know how big is the LGBTs as many are still hiding in the closets, many shy to own up to their sexual inclinations and preference, the number could be very large.
While the debate is going on and with stranger and stranger people, once thought of as the old natural order of things, speaking for the new natural order of things, one begins to question where are these people coming from? What is their agenda and who they really are?
Perhaps it is proper for the two camps to come clean and reveal their sexual preference or religious background before making a stand. In this way we will know why are these people taking the stand they chose to and not because of hidden motive or agenda. Ya, please come clean and be transparent. These two words are the key principles of Singaporean affairs. Anyone not coming clean is as guilty and sinister as the devil. When one fears coming clean, it means one is hiding something.
Let the debate continues with everyone declaring upfront who and what they are. I can understand the points raised between a sin and a crime, one a religious norm of what is acceptable and what is not, the other a legal position, a law to forbid a certain act. There are times when the two coincide and there are times when the two differ, sometimes by a lot, sometimes a little.
What do you think? Are the neutral, central, non partisan, hetero bias also taking sides, or those taking sides are actually not the neutral, central but partisan and homo bias, with vested interests in saying what they are saying?
PS. It is understandable that those born with such biological traits would behave or prefer to have their own ways or life style. But there are many that are born straight but unthinking or thinking that it is fashionable, after a few intakes of drugs, to think that this is the in thing to go for, the new natural order of things.
This debate arising from the movement calling for the abolition of an 'outdated' law that forbids sex between men is seeing people taking sides for and against the law. Many prominent and eminent and influential elite and natural aristocrats have joint forces with the anti S377A law, calling for its abolition. The religious groups are also up in arms against this threat to the natural order of things, the natural order of creation. With the growing presence of LGBTs, the old natural order of things is looking like unnatural and the new natural order of things is like everything LGBT. So what is the natural order of things?
At the moment the majority is belongs to the old natural order of things. What if the LGBTs become a majority and the new natural order of things? We do not really know how big is the LGBTs as many are still hiding in the closets, many shy to own up to their sexual inclinations and preference, the number could be very large.
While the debate is going on and with stranger and stranger people, once thought of as the old natural order of things, speaking for the new natural order of things, one begins to question where are these people coming from? What is their agenda and who they really are?
Perhaps it is proper for the two camps to come clean and reveal their sexual preference or religious background before making a stand. In this way we will know why are these people taking the stand they chose to and not because of hidden motive or agenda. Ya, please come clean and be transparent. These two words are the key principles of Singaporean affairs. Anyone not coming clean is as guilty and sinister as the devil. When one fears coming clean, it means one is hiding something.
Let the debate continues with everyone declaring upfront who and what they are. I can understand the points raised between a sin and a crime, one a religious norm of what is acceptable and what is not, the other a legal position, a law to forbid a certain act. There are times when the two coincide and there are times when the two differ, sometimes by a lot, sometimes a little.
What do you think? Are the neutral, central, non partisan, hetero bias also taking sides, or those taking sides are actually not the neutral, central but partisan and homo bias, with vested interests in saying what they are saying?
PS. It is understandable that those born with such biological traits would behave or prefer to have their own ways or life style. But there are many that are born straight but unthinking or thinking that it is fashionable, after a few intakes of drugs, to think that this is the in thing to go for, the new natural order of things.
10/01/2018
IPSOS- Most think can but cannot spot fake news
How credible are surveys conducted by marketing research agencies? If I
were to conduct a survey on whether Singaporeans or any nationals if
they could spot fake news by showing them 10 headlines, just headlines,
and ask them whether they are real or fake, how many would be able to
get the answers correct?
The answer is obvious. Just by reading a headline, it is highly impossible, highly improbable to know whether the content is real or fake. Even the committee members of the Select Committee on fake news would also fail miserably if they were to be put to such a test.
IPSOS is reported in thenewpaper as a global independent market research agency and they conducted a survey with the ‘aims to understand the susceptibility of Singaporeans towards fake news.’ And this is their conclusion, ‘Four in five Singaporeans say they can confidently spot fake news. But when put to the test, more than 90 per cent mistakenly identified at least one out of five fake headlines as real.’
This was how the test was conducted. ‘But when participants were given 10 news headlines from digital channels and asked to indicate which ones were fake, only 43 per cent correctly identified two or fewer fake headlines. Of the 10, half were fakes.’
Even if I were to tell just by reading headlines, I can confidently tell you that I would not have better clue or get better results than those being surveyed. And I can also confidently tell you the result would be the same if all the committee members of the Select Committee on fake news were put to the same test.
What do you think is the problem with this test? How credible and reliable is a test of this nature to understand the susceptibility of people towards fake news?
This is another case of stupidity has no cure. Who do you think are the stupid one?
Incidentally, who is smarter or cleverer to tell the public what is fake news or what is the truth and what to believe and what not to believe? The clever people in the Select Committee or some small groups of people thinking that they are smarter and cleverer than you? Are you nuts or idiots that need some unknown jokers to tell you what is true and what is fake? What is your IQ and what are their IQs?
The answer is obvious. Just by reading a headline, it is highly impossible, highly improbable to know whether the content is real or fake. Even the committee members of the Select Committee on fake news would also fail miserably if they were to be put to such a test.
IPSOS is reported in thenewpaper as a global independent market research agency and they conducted a survey with the ‘aims to understand the susceptibility of Singaporeans towards fake news.’ And this is their conclusion, ‘Four in five Singaporeans say they can confidently spot fake news. But when put to the test, more than 90 per cent mistakenly identified at least one out of five fake headlines as real.’
This was how the test was conducted. ‘But when participants were given 10 news headlines from digital channels and asked to indicate which ones were fake, only 43 per cent correctly identified two or fewer fake headlines. Of the 10, half were fakes.’
Even if I were to tell just by reading headlines, I can confidently tell you that I would not have better clue or get better results than those being surveyed. And I can also confidently tell you the result would be the same if all the committee members of the Select Committee on fake news were put to the same test.
What do you think is the problem with this test? How credible and reliable is a test of this nature to understand the susceptibility of people towards fake news?
This is another case of stupidity has no cure. Who do you think are the stupid one?
Incidentally, who is smarter or cleverer to tell the public what is fake news or what is the truth and what to believe and what not to believe? The clever people in the Select Committee or some small groups of people thinking that they are smarter and cleverer than you? Are you nuts or idiots that need some unknown jokers to tell you what is true and what is fake? What is your IQ and what are their IQs?
9/30/2018
INSIDE North Korea - Personal Experiences
North Korea or its Official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), is not as well-known as many other countries. Many descriptions of DPRK also do not provide a fair and balanced holistic "big picture" of the beautiful country known by the many who actually have visited her.
Embedded as a DPRK Business Mission Team member is Mediacorp journalist Ms Wong Pei Ting. Her first person account of the Historic Mission is unconventional, fair, balanced, honest and wonderfully informative.
Read the following:
Return to the Original DPRK Mission Report:
At The Dawn of Peace
Anyone interested in the above projects or be part of the next DPRK expeditions or just interested in DPRK can contact me:
miko.heng@gmail.com
The Americans are so pathetic
After pledging to give US$113m for a regional cyber infrastructure, read as building castle in the air or space, a pittance to any of the natural aristocrats in Singapore, the Americans are pledging to give another US$300m to Asean for security cooperation. What a joke? A pauper is a pauper. When you have no money, don't pretend to be a rich man and throw a few pieces of crumbs and expect the recipients to be grateful for it. And this is the sorry state of the American Empire, wasting all its money in fighting wars instead of doing something useful for its people and the people of the world, especially its allies.
How big are these few hundred millions compare to the US$350 billion China is contributing to the Belt and Road Infrastructure project for the whole of Asia? This is like a tiny drop in the ocean.
Below was reported in the Channel News Asia.
"SINGAPORE: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pledged on Saturday (Aug 4) to provide nearly US$300 million in new security funding for Southeast Asia.
Pompeo unveiled the figure to reporters on the sidelines of a meeting of foreign ministers from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other officials from around the world in Singapore.
"As part of our commitment to advancing regional security in the Indo-Pacific, the United States is excited to announce nearly US$300 million dollars of new funding to reinforce security cooperation throughout the entire region," he said.
"This new security assistance will advance our shared priorities, especially to strengthen maritime security, develop humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping capabilities and enhance programmes that counter transnational threats.""
Just like the US$113m, where are the details? Or it is just another hot air? At most, the US$300m would be tied to buying American weapons, weapons that they have over produced and have no use for except to fight wars. And to make the weapons meaningful to the Asean countries, the Americans would be agitating and provoking more tensions in the region and then tell the Asean countries, "See, China or North Korea is going to invade and conquer Asean countries. Quick, quick, here are the weapons, take them as cheap price. The low interest rate would be paid by the US$300m we pledged to help Asean."
How many silly Asean countries would fall to this trap again?
The Americans have become another one trick pony. Conduct wars, start wars and sell weapons. There is nothing good coming from the Americans except wars and more wars. They did not know what else they can do to make the world a more peaceful and prosperous place except to conduct wars and create tensions everywhere they go.
How big are these few hundred millions compare to the US$350 billion China is contributing to the Belt and Road Infrastructure project for the whole of Asia? This is like a tiny drop in the ocean.
Below was reported in the Channel News Asia.
"SINGAPORE: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pledged on Saturday (Aug 4) to provide nearly US$300 million in new security funding for Southeast Asia.
Pompeo unveiled the figure to reporters on the sidelines of a meeting of foreign ministers from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other officials from around the world in Singapore.
"As part of our commitment to advancing regional security in the Indo-Pacific, the United States is excited to announce nearly US$300 million dollars of new funding to reinforce security cooperation throughout the entire region," he said.
"This new security assistance will advance our shared priorities, especially to strengthen maritime security, develop humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping capabilities and enhance programmes that counter transnational threats.""
Just like the US$113m, where are the details? Or it is just another hot air? At most, the US$300m would be tied to buying American weapons, weapons that they have over produced and have no use for except to fight wars. And to make the weapons meaningful to the Asean countries, the Americans would be agitating and provoking more tensions in the region and then tell the Asean countries, "See, China or North Korea is going to invade and conquer Asean countries. Quick, quick, here are the weapons, take them as cheap price. The low interest rate would be paid by the US$300m we pledged to help Asean."
How many silly Asean countries would fall to this trap again?
The Americans have become another one trick pony. Conduct wars, start wars and sell weapons. There is nothing good coming from the Americans except wars and more wars. They did not know what else they can do to make the world a more peaceful and prosperous place except to conduct wars and create tensions everywhere they go.
9/29/2018
Who is behind all the terrorist groups in the world?
When would world leaders, especially little USAs and American cronies, admit that the USA is behind all the terrorist movements and groups attacking legally elected and legitimate govts? The denials or looking the other way cannot go on anymore. The Americans are the number One terrorist organization breeding, training, funding and supporting all the terrorist movements all over the world, from Latin America through Europe, Central Asia, China’s Xinjiang, Middle East, Africa and SE Asia, including those in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Myanmar, are all funded by the Americans.
The most glaring example is Syria. The rebels and ISIS were all babies of the Americans. They have been defeated and at the last stage of being totally annihilated by the combined forces of Syrian govt, Russian and Iranian armies, holed up in Idlib.
The Americans are desperately trying to protect and save them and have unleashed Israel to attack, bomb and strike at Syrian and Iranian soldiers fighting the ISIS and rebels. The Americans have also inserted their Special Forces into Syria and have done the inevitable, direct contact with Russian Special Forces. Both sides are fighting fiercely without admitting the direct clashes between two of the most well trained special forces in the world. The Americans struck first and inflicted big casualties on the Russians, killing a Russian general, and the latter had hit back to exact revenge.
The Americans continue to build up more conventional forces around Syria, more warships and attack aircraft to match the Russian presence, all in a last ditch effort to save their poodles in the rebel movements and ISIS. Die, die the Americans want to save them to fight another day. They cannot accept defeat in the hands of the combined Russian, Iranian and Syrian forces. More American Special Forces are moving into Syria to confront the Russians in a situation they have been avoiding but forced to do so now.
There is no reason for the Evil Empire to risk a major war with the Russians just for some rebels and terrorist groups unless these are American assets that they seriously and desperately wanted to preserve and save to be redeployed in other theatres of war at their disposal. This showed how important the rebels and terrorist groups are to the Americans, that they are terror arms of the Americans.
The Americans are still trying to deceive the world, hiding under their deceptions, that the Americans are in Syria to fight the terrorists but in reality helping the terrorists, protecting the terrorists but fighting the Syrian, Iranian and Russian forces instead.
Where is the UN to openly condemn this American mischief and call a spade a spade and put an end to this devious American terrorism?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)