why the need for a crooked bridge

there are always the daily grind and jam at the causeway and the second link. maybe these jams are used as the ultimate proof for a crooked bridge. why don't both immigrations just open all the custom/immigration counters for a month and see whether there is any more jams? provided of course all the officers actually perform their duties normally and not go on a work slow campaign to prove a different point. i think the singapore side has most of the custom booths open most of the time. it is the malaysian side that often has only a few booths open. if they cannot find the manpower to fill up all the booths, how are they going to fill up all the additional booths in an enlarged immigration checkpoint serving a presumably more efficient crooked bridge with more traffic? this is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. by hook or crook, the square peg must be made to fit.

singapore is a land of big personal sacrifices

my earlier post talked about the huge sacrifice of all full blooded singapore men to perform national service as a duty to the nation. the greatest personal sacrifices actually came from our politicians. these rare talents have stepped forward to serve the nation instead of remaining in the private sector where they could earn 3 or more times what the state could afford to pay them. the state should remember the sacrifices of these humble but talented men and honour them, maybe in a house of fame. such great sacrifices for the nation are rare among leaders of the world today. we shall start to honour great men like goh keng swee, hon sui sen, rajaratnam, toh chin chye, yusoff ishak etc etc.

china, a US paranoia

why is the usa so paranoid about a rising china? the reason, a general perception among the americans that china is a potentially hostile nation with aggressive intention. this forms the basis of us policies towards china. how fragile and clumsy could it be for the world's number one superpower to behave in such a callous manner towards another nation on a preconceived idea not based on facts and realities but a feeling, a gut feel. gut feeling was also the same reason for the usa to invade iraq. the chinese had been a battered nation for more than a centuries, almost colonised by the western powers, including, and yes, the usa. and of course japan, the most aggressive and expansionist country next to germany during the second world war. and since china had broken free from the western power domination, it has been self reliant and developing its own economy and all the necessary functions of statehood, and a strong military force, just in case the foreign powers will do another 8 nation league of nation invasion of china. china has all the right to build its defence force to ward off any foreign invasion. has china acted in anyway to show that it harbours expansionist ambition since its return to some respectability as a nation? it fought a war with the usa in korea, to assist the north koreans and to ward off american advances to the yalu river bordering china. after the war all its forces returned to china. the american forces remained in south korea, turning south korea into an american protectorate. the chinese fought a border war with india, marched its troops to the outskirt of new delhi. it could march into the capital city. but the chinese withdrew, after teaching the indian army a lesson not to attack chinese border guards. it fought the vietnamese and could march into hanoi. but it withdrew after proving to the vietnamese that it could do so, despite suffering heavy casualties. it went into vietnam to halt the vietnamese expansion into laos and cambodia. it curdly proved a point to the vietnamese that though the vietnamese could defeat the mighty americans, they could not defeat the chinese. the point is that it did not stay on in vietnamese soil. all its troops returned promptly back to china. these were not good enough evidences to prove to the americans that the chinese do not harbour expansionist goals. but the american gut feel is good enough for the americans to pursue a hostile and provocative foreign policy towards china. and the american found the expansionist and aggressive japanese a more docile ally to sleep with. maybe japan is meek in the eyes of the americans. after all it is still an american protectorate, with a hugh american military base in okinawa.

singaporeans paying for their sins of yesteryears

extravagance and wasteful consumption are sinful. thrift is a virtue. these fundamental values of decent living were thrown to the winds and singaporeans are now paying for it. for not too long ago, everything was so rosy. everyone was encouraged, in a way, to live for today and hope for a better tomorrow. singaporeans were programmed to spend beyond their means, or to spend as much as they could afford. hdb, a govt institution that originally built flats at subsidised prices to provide all singaporeans with a roof over their heads, had a policy change and the subsidies became a subsidy over market value. and when market prices went through the roof, so were hdb prices. the flats were priced according to affordability. and there was even a policy to build only bigger flats instead of building smaller flats for those who are more cautious with their financial resources. singaporeans were led to buy bigger and bigger flats, leading to over gearing. even in the case of hospital beds, c class beds that received more govt subsidies and cost lesser were reduced to a minimum. patients were encouraged or have no choice but to go for b class beds, which means pay more through their cpf savings. good and in working condition cars, less than 10 years old were scrapped. or at most allowed to be on the road for 10 years unless one is prepared to pay more taxes. what a wasteful policy in consumption. with the economic crisis, property prices crashed, car prices crashed, cpf savings depleted. singaporeans are now hanging on to negative assets, empty cpfs, jobless or low paying jobs. this is the price of yesterday's folly that singaporeans are paying today.

the media is a national institution

just to add to ho kwonping's ambiguous statement on the role of the media, i think it would be easier to define the role of the media if we understand it as a national institution. like the govt and the civil service, the uniformed services etc, all are national institutions and must think nation first. they will only be seen to have served their roles, and be seen as responsible organisations, if their actions are justified from the perspective of the people and the nation. should there be a conflict between nation and govt, then national interest is supreme. if the media, and all the agencies are clear on this point, then there need not be so much confusion. apparently ho kwonping is still a bit confused. under the same reasoning, all political parties down to every citizen, must think nation first and act accordingly. acting for the nation's interest is the highest honour for any individual or organisation. only then can the nation survive and weather through whatever crisis as a single entity, with all acting as one, sharing the same objectives and goals. national interest is selfless as compare to selfish individual or group interest.