did nguyen van tuong do any good?

nguyen van tuong is no more. it is a sad thing to see a young man meeting such a dreadful end. but the law is there for a purpose and the law has to take its course. without the rule of law then we will be faced with a bigger problem. we can only hope that nguyen's death is not for nothing. the issue has gained all the publicity it needed to tell the world that drug traffickers will meet death should they visit singapore. so the message is loud and clear to everyone in all corners of the globe. let us hope that nguyen will be the last drug trafficker to set foot on the island. the other issue is the death penalty. it is not the best solution and not a pleasant solution to deter a serious scourge of society. drug is not as innocent as drinking beer. the damages and pain that it can inflict on those affected are far worst than what people may think. it is best to curb it as best we can. can we substitute the deterrence of hanging with something that is more pleasant and keep drug traffickers away? would 100 strokes of the cane and life imprisonment be a better alternative? if we were to change hanging to something else that ended up encouraging more drug traffickers onto our soil, would it be worth it? now that the world knows that no drug traffickers will be spared, would it be better to keep the death penalty which, hopefully after nguyen van tuong, no drug traffickers would be stupid enough to risk visiting us. if that can be the result, then nguyen van tuong's death would have done something good. the message would finally get through the drug world that we mean business and no way they are going to wriggle their way out once they are caught. it is not a good solution or a good ending. but it is something that all of us have to live with. and so will the world have to live with the drug problem and the death penalty here. nature also has its death penalty. you toy with danger you shall die. hiv and aids are natures example of capital punishment.

commercialisation and private hospitals

a young man was stabbed and rushed to a private hospital in cheras. the hospital insisted for an upfront payment of $5,000 or else no admission. only after rushing home and returned with the money was the injured admitted into the operation theatre. it was more than an hour passed. the next thing was for the doctor to come out and said it was too late. the young man died. and the hospital will not release the body unless the medical bill is fully paid. such thoughtlessness and uncaring nature of man at its worst are beyond belief. this happened in kl, malaysia. the private hospital was owned by singaporeans. this is the consequence when privatisation leads to the compromising of the original mission of setting up a hospital, to save life. even in an emergency, everyone is thinking about money. no money just too bad. this dehumanisation of life must be put to an end. privatisation is a four letter word. my experience of being stung by a stonefish and rushed to a nearby island where shell had an inhouse clinic is a glaring example of the harm privatisation can caused to human life and humanity. the shell medical staff treated me immediately without a single question ask about money or payment. and i left after being treated, expending their time and medicine and professional help, without paying a cent. i could have lost my leg or at least my toe, and an expensive medical bill if i was rush to a hospital. this basic goodness of human nature is lost in our madness for profits and money. when shall we be less mercenary? where is philantrophy and the goodness of man? we have exchange our humanity for money, and to some it is good. it is the right direction to go...to hell. ps. the young man happened to be related to najib razak, dep pm of malaysia.

foreign talents for company boards

it is a truth that nobody wants to know. or at least nobody who is benefitting from all the fat director fees would want to know. heng swee kiat, the mas managing director said this,' these busy directors find that they do not have time to keep up with the workings of the business and to fully digest the information they are confronted with in their board papers.' is this new or news? has rip van winkle just woken up? now, finally mas wants to do something to correct this anomally that has been common knowledge all these years. it is pure nonsense for someone, no matter how talented, to be in full employment, maybe even wearing several hats, to sit in more than 3 boards of directors. everyone has only 24 hours a day to work. no, minus all the rest and sleep time, travelling time, eating time, quality time with families, how much time is left for real work? 10, 12 hours. it is high time that corporate governance be taken seriously and directorship be taken seriously. the party is over. or is it? is the call for foreign talents to boost up the pool of directors necessary? some companies that need that extra exposure may need some foreign talents. but we are not short of qualified people to be directors. we have plenty of them, now jobless or holding lesser jobs, because of age. many have been prematurely retired for their own good as if after 45 or 50 they should be buried and forgotten. we have a very serious unemployment problem at hand for the above 50s. there is no need to import more fictitious foreign talents. look after our own people. make directorship a new career for the senior and qualified professionals. are we so short of ideas as to discard all our experienced people to be cleaners and taxi drivers? limit directorship to a maximum of 3, preferably 1, for full time employees. the rest of the directorships can be made available for qualified and experienced singaporeans. these are the jobs that we should reserve for our own citizens. not fictitious foreign talents. can we be real? can we create value jobs for our citizens?

stonefish and first aid

the occurrence of people being stung by the stonefish appears to be a regular affair around the main island and surrounding islands. and i was told that our hospitals did not have the antidote for it. this is quite puzzling as my encounter with the stonefish was more than 15 years ago. and they had the antidote then. it was a simple procedure once you have the right antidote. no complication, no expensive medical bills. just like a jab for flu. the stonefish is no small mean fish. it is poisonous and can kill. all our resort islands and sea related sports clubs must have the antidote on standby. i would think that sentosa, the biggest resort island, would have an emergency clinic in the island and with the antidote. the number of daily visitors are in the thousands. if a factory in jurong or in the islands can have an inhouse clinic, there is all the reasons to have one in sentosa. if not, at least an arrangement be made with the clinics in world trade centre to stock up the antidote. they need to use it every now and then. this is first aid, and a public service. i could not believe it when someone emailed me asking where on earth or in singapore can one find the antidote for stonefish. and he has been recommending sentosa to stock up on it but unsuccessful. i only hope that this is not true.

why nguyen must die

or why you must die. it is a bold statement that normally comes from an emperor or a mafia boss. and this appeared on the australian paper The Age. and it was accredited to our high commissioner joseph koh in canberra. our affable commissioner was instantly transformed into some kind of a mob chief of a nigger lynching party. it must be a frightening experience to be tagged with such a comment. all joseph did was trying to separate the facts from the fiction in the drug trafficker's case. he conscientiously gathered all the facts and wrote an article for dissemination to the australian press with the heading 'separate fact from fiction.' but the age chose to have their own heading, giving a totally different picture. this is the power of the media, the power of free press. they have the freedom to choose what they want to know, read what they like, select what they like, write what they like and print what they like. in other words they gathered information to support their agenda. and if their agenda is against you, you had it. but what is the difference between a free press and a controlled press? don't they do the same thing but to satisfy different agenda? the only significant difference is who is calling the shot. free press or controlled press are as good or as malicious as they are, depending on their mission or intent. what is important is a responsible press. but responsible to who? who sets the agenda and whose value and interest should the press be responsible to? the power of the press and the media is tremendous in what it can do to a collection of facts. they can turn facts into fiction, into comics or into a gorified hollywood thriller or horror movie. how true is truth?