when will the teachers grow up?

students prevented from entering schools to collect 'o' level results or told to come back later, properly attired, hair dyed black and not in primary colours. these were the actions taken by the educators of our children, who deemed spaghetti straps, short skirts or punkish hair improper or undesirable inside a school compound. many years back in the 60s or 70s, long hair rock stars were not allowed to perform in singapore unless their hair are cropped short, like singaporeans. today this kind of mentality is still with our teachers. better tell choktong and hsienloong cannot wear red shirts while on tv. must wear clean white long sleeve shirts. by the way, the school children have left the schools after sitting for the 'o' level. some could be working or in other schools. they came back only for the result slips. why are these schools still think that they have the right to regiment them? can they let the young have their fun? why must every young one dressed up like old spinsters or monks? come on teachers, relax lah. if they are bad they are bad. otherwise it is just some innocent fun of the adolescence. making them come back in dresses that the teachers found palatable is not going to change anything. i think the teachers need to grow up. with such rigid minds, how can there be creativity?

futuristic singapore

the infrastructure of singapore will be designed to be handicap friendly, from lifts, walkways, roads, to public transport. with the ageing population, singapore is preparing itself for a nation of wheelchair bound communters. i am not sure of the economics, but i think it would be easier and more economical to set up a dedicated transport service to cater for these people than to turn the whole island into a white elephant. i have seen all the beautiful metal strips and buttons on mrt station floors. i have yet to see one handicap person using them. sure there will be some handicap people using them. but the frequency and cost of having them need to be studied carefully. and stop passing the buck of a poorly thought out solution to the commuters. it is easy to make everyone pays. another crooked bridge solution. i am not against making life easier for the handicaps. but i think the solution must be practical and cost effective. imagine redesigning all the buses for wheelchairs? how many buses need to be redesigned and how much will it cost? would it be better to have a fleet of taxis with such additional capabilities and be subsidised by the transport companies. more thinking needs to go into the concept before ploughing more public money into it. it will be public money, everyone's money. the transport companies are going to pass the buck to everyone. so please think carefully when using public money. transport companies have a moral responsibility to spend such money wisely and efficiently. if they want to spend on more gimmicks, please pay for it themselves, from their own pockets. maybe it will be better to have powered wheelchair vehicles. afterall at that age, many will have all the time in the world to sight see at their own time.

crooked bridge: a rip off for poor commuters

After more than eight decades, it has really outlived its usefulness, painful though this may be for some of us to admit. It is understandable that there are those who cling on to the Causeway and loathe to see it go. It is so much a part of their psyche that its demolition could well leave a psychological, sentimental and emotional vacuum in their version of the republic’s history.Such sentiments could be shared by some Malaysians, too. But this is the 21st century. We owe it to the younger generations on both sides of the strait to optimise the economic potential of the region. The economic and non-economic arguments for the Causeway’s removal are compelling. Opposition to the new bridge should not be rooted in outmoded fears about Singapore Port’s status, perceived threats to its economic well-being and its regional role as a transportation hub.The republic has progressed way beyond its once heavy dependence on its port. ... In fact, the beneficial impact on Singapore from an improved economic hinterland in Johor with the Causeway’s removal will far outweigh any adverse effect, if at all there is any. Johor is already a major destination for Singapore’s investment dollars, which have contributed immensely to the State’s economic growth and prosperity. There will be more commercial and investment opportunities when the bridge is built.... The mutual benefits of a new bridge are not difficult to fathom. Hopefully, economic realities and common sense will win the day for the bridge. by Tan Sri Lim Kok Wing is president of the Malaysian Institute of Directors. i have extracted parts of an article by lim kok wing posted in singaporesurf. i think this is an idiotic parroting of a silly idea that is not tenable economically. the bridge is anything but a ripoff of the people who needs to commute daily to and fro from both sides. with the bridge no one can save a few dollars walking across. with the bridge, all transportation is limited by the bridge and with its dangers of mishaps. with the bridge, room for expansion is so limited than with a land bridge. no sensible person will spend billions to cut off a land bridge to be replaced by a flimsy bridge just for some water to flow under and a few small pleasure craft or small ships to sail through. it is definitely water under the bridge. the people of malaysia and singapore must stand up to protest against this silly bridge concept. when are these people going to think for the people on both sides of the causeway, sincerely, than for their own pockets?

general election: prelim round 7

george yeo, the affable gentleman minister, said he will work very hard for every vote. he will not take voters for granted. this is a big contrast from the initial outburst of arrogance, that pap will win in any contest that we heard. perhaps the feedback has its effect. or maybe it is just george yeo and his sense of humility. but why is aljunid a hot seat that attracts the opposition? they failed the first time for technical reasons. what a shame and what a fish. why would wp do itself in on a simple procedural matter? is there something fishy inside wp? in my perception, george yeo is a very bright and sensible minister. i even rated him as a sure win minister. but why would the opposition want to challenge him when there are very obvious weak and controversial ministers to take on? did the opposition reads the ground differently, that george yeo is weak in aljunid and the ground is sweet? or, someone fed misinformation to wp to take on a strong minister, thus wasted their valuable and limited resources in a sure lose contest? there is something very strange in wp's strategy. it defies logic and sensibilities to contest against george yeo. but the worker's party may known something we don't. or they could be misled.

general election: can sm goh produce another miracle

this is the title of a post in ypap forum. can sm goh produce another miracle? it reminds me of a friend of mine. he has a bag full of miracles. so if anyone needs a miracle he is the man. for every club in his bag is a miracle. from his 3 irons to his sand wedge, his driver to his 5 woods, everyone is a miracle. we used to have a good laugh when he pull his miracles from his bag. we can expect something great, except his shots. hope he is not reading this. a bag of clubs named miracles! a bag full of miracles!