racial harmony or peaceful coexistence

a forumer, michael heng, wrote in the straits times lamenting that his son did not have a malay friend in his school. he is worried that his son will not be able to understand his malay friends and their culture etc. such atrocious situation shall not have happened. such parents must send their children to a school where there are more malay students so that their sons will grow up in the company of malay friends. if they did not do so they will undermine our objective of racial harmony and peaceful coexistence among the different races. and if they are stubborn, like michael heng, and keep their sons in such schools, they should be caned. and schools that have few malay students must make special effort to recruit more malay students or students from minority groups into their cohorts. or the principal must be made to explain why they have failed to do so. now am i making sense?

general election: prelim round 5

after the initial exchanges of a few blows, all has quieten down. both sides are reassessing their positions. who has done the right things and is on the upper hand after the brief encounter? pap started by attacking the wp manifesto as a time bomb and a poison and demanded condescendingly that the wp must change its manifesto or else. it is a talk down tactic by the strong against the weak and it puts the wp on the defensive, giving the impression that wp has erred seriously and pap knows best. this immediately drew response from the opposition as a high and mighty attitude and undemocratic. a bullying tactic. how are all these gesturings being perceived by the voters? would the voters bite the pap reasoning and say yes wp is dangerous and up to no good. cannot be trusted to be given the vote. or would the voters said, well, all these are political stance and may even say, stop the bullying. if the later, then it will put the pap in a not so comfortable start. a big bully small contest. and then there were some follow up comments that pap sure win. would this be taken by the voters as jumping the gun or taking them for granted? arrogance? the issues are simmering and probably both parties are discussing their positions after the initial standoff. anyone gains an upper hand?

islam tested in europe

the current rift in denmark over the caricature of the prophet mohammed is gearing up for an ugly fight. according to islam, no image of the prophet is allowed. this is banned. and the danish paper made caricatures of the prophet is a violation of islamic laws. this is now a boiling issue and could become nasty as the muslims felt very offended. the european papers' position is that it is freedom of the press to write or present whatever to the readers. and they defended themselves by asking whether islamic law applies to non muslims. if it is banned by islam, does it mean that it is banned to non muslim as well. now this is a little tricky. islam bans the eating of pork. when non muslims eat pork does it offend the muslims? obviously it does. but does it allow the muslims to demand the non muslim not to eat pork? where is the line drawn? it is reported in the press that a cleric said the danish paper's caricature was not done for press freedom but to offend muslim. does this distinction means that if it is done not to offend but say for a genuinely decent purpose like the teaching of islam, would it then be ok for non muslims to use images of the prophet? when does the sensitivity of muslims stops and why should non muslims be subject to the same restrictions as muslims?

banks are not for poor people

we used to have a people's bank or a poor man's bank. it started as a poor bank and accept poor man's money. even school children's pocket money of a few cents and pasted as stamps. that was how the poor man's bank started. today this poor man's bank has forgotten all the poor men who helped to build it up into a rich bank and becomes a rich man's bank. it does not welcome children's little savings anymore. or it does but make sure that it is more than a certain amount. and any poor man who thinks of putting a few hundred dollars into the bank may end up with no money after paying administrative fee for having too little money in his bank account. instead of earning an interest, the bank levy a fee for putting too little money there. this is the price of progress. no money no talk. the poor man's bank now would not even want to know you. so poor people with a few dollars of savings better keep it under their pillows or in plastic containers and hide them somewhere at home. would there be a day when the banks go back to woo the poor man? ingrates?

not govt's responsibility to help the poor

we have heard this statement many times. it is not the govt's responsibility to help the poor. the govt will only help the poor when there is a surplus in the budget or in the govt's investment. is such a position acceptable to the people? what is the role of the govt towards the poor of the country, assuming that there is no surplus to be given away?