speaking the truth loudly, by adverts

Derogatory Adverts By Paul Chan's 'The Craftsman's Forge'This ad "How long more must I take this bus to work?" upsets some commuters.Jan 13, 2006 I saw an advert on my drive to work today which made me a little indignant with the people who put up the advert. As you can see from the photo, OCBC seems to think that its shameful to take a bus. ... The advert screams out to people outside to compare themselves to the “unsuccessful people sitting in the bus. How much more insensitive and derogatory can one get? I hope the advertisement censors get to this really soon. I don’t have a problem with OCBC trying to drum up business for its wealth management portfolios. Just don’t do it by putting people down. the above comment is by seah chiang nee in his littlespeck.com hey chiang nee, got to face reality man. when a man is poor he is poor. what is the difference with the naming of budget terminal? luckily they don't call the bus system and mrt as cheap transport system for cheap people. never mind lah. let people poke a little is ok. take it as a reverse motivation and work harder to own a car and fly by sia. and they can count themselves lucky that they will get a $1 billion workfare bonus. it is quite good and respectable to be a little bit poor in this rich nation. there will always be crumbs falling off the table. must thank ocbc for the motivation. see, can look at things positively : )

the impending attack on iran

allowing a rogue nation to possess wmd is a nightmare. the concept is a very powerful one. many will be easily frighten by the possibility of a mad leader like hitler or bush who will be trigger happy to use it anytime he pleases. iran must not be allowed to own nuclear weapons. on the other hand, who is the rightful person or state to pin a rouge nation title on any country? who is morally good enough to earn that right? the next question is, why are some nations allowed to own wmd and some not allowed? why are are some allowed to threaten others with war and some not allowed? the israelis are very confident that they will be able to launch a successful attack on iran's nuclear facility. success always builds confidence, some times blind arrogance. we have done it and we will continue to do it successfully. our formula works the last few times and will work again and again. the opposition are weak and unable to think of better counter moves or strategies. this is the mindset of all victors. they always think that things will not change and they will win again and again. the iranians were once an empire, the persian empire. they are not fools. just like the chinese and indian empires, battered for many centuries and written off as backward and unprogressive people, hopeless and no talent. today they have stood up to regain their places in the international community as respectable people. the uae is also proving that arabs are no fools. will the iranian be able to stand up to the impending attack by the israelis and the americans? and would they be able to turn the tide? iraq said they will be smashed. iraq is a good example to all ambitious arab states that they are poorly equipped to fight a conventional war against the mighty forces of the empire. but would iran prove to be a bridge too far?

2 votes for mature oldies a bad choice?

That restructuring has hit Singapore's elderly (economic definition here: any one over 45) the hardest has become patently clear, shown by the government allocating the biggest bag of goodies to them. Some media people call them the crucial swing vote in the coming election. The expectation (at least until the perks started to fly) was that many of them would vote against the government. That got me thinking. There must be some old-timers in the PAP who must be saying, "Thank God, we didn't give an extra vote to Singaporeans between 35-60 years who were married and had children!" the above is from an article by seah chiang nee in the littlespeck.com. in brief, chiang nee's contention is that it is a good thing that the proposal for the oldies to have two votes will backfire on the pap this time given their hard times. i choose to disagree. i think the $1 billion dollar handouts will score quite well among the oldies who needed the dole. and a few dollars will mean a lot to them. they can be easily satisified given their dire straits. no need to throw peanuts at them. hungry people are quite easy to please. they don't think too well either. many suffering from dementia. and if $1 billion does not do the job, next time can increase it to $2 billion and call it workfare plus.

insurance industry: how to destroy more jobs?

from a workforce of more than 20,000 agents to 13,000 today. that must be a great way to create jobs. from an attractive profession that provides a decent and good livelihood, many agents are trying to make ends meet. that is another great achievement. why has a flourishing industry that supports a huge and happy workforce been battered to a state that joining the industry is a case of no better choice? i wonder how many other industries are facing the same plight? maybe insurance agents will do better if they call themselves entrepreneurs. that title will entitle them to earn more and be respectable. is it because the insurance agents were earning too much and people begruded their high income? and they were able to afford big cars and big houses, which probably make people's eyes turned from green to red. one thing for sure, these agents or the industry were not in a position to tell the world that they are professional people and deserve to be paid well. and, because they are able to provide a good level of service and professionalism, they should be paid more than a peanut. i find it very odd that the insurance people are not able to demand to be paid well and demand to be respected while people working in non profit charitable organisations can demand such high respect and high income. qualification may be a factor, i think. they should create an insurance university and award all the agents with first class honours and doctorate. i think that might help. once they get the papers, their work scope can be that of a clerk. but all they need to do is to give themselves a big title and pay accordingly. people will accept that formula. the game will be different if the insuracnce people were able to justify their own value and income and decide how much theyshould be paid. they can even create more jobs with better job titles to be paid more....only if they could not be questioned. i think many insurance agents would qualify for workfare bonuses.

an honest answer from a blind man

why is the society of the blind having more members that are not blind? the blind membership chairman answered. 'when the applicants tell me that they are blind i have to take their words for it.' the above story was posted in the talkingcock forum. and i wonder why would these people with sight wanted to join a society for blind people?