rhapsody in bloom

This is a major article in the paper celebrating the riots of colours in the spring of Singapore. Yes, yes, plentiful of colours everywhere. But it could be much better if more carefully conceptualised to maximise the impact of the blooms. What has happened is that in the process of trying to do too many things at one go in a small plot of land, we created a jungle in the garden or mini park. There are simply too many varities of plants and too small in numbers of any specific plant to create that whoomp and ahhs feelings. The sakura park, or a pine forest, is sensational and dramatic because of its sheer size and expanse of uniformity. One specie or one bloom that stretches as far as the eyes can see. This induces or extracts a sense of beauty and awe among the viewers. In the local context, an example is the 5 km drive from Changi Airport to town, and if both sides and the centre divider were lined with just bougainvillas. Nothing but blooming bougainvillas of a particular colour. The sight will be permanently etched in the memory. Or we can designate some roads just for frangipani, some parks only tristellatia, some ixora or allamanda. Lantanas, if well trimmed, are very compact and colourful. Imagine a long stretch of roads of red from the flame of the forest or yellow from cassia or yellow flame? We don't need sakura parks. We can have our own local floral parks. Not little jungles of uncoordinated themes. It is simply a mess. It could have been better if carefully thought out. Diversity in landscaping in this sense is bad. Simplicity and less is actually good.

boon yang clarified: MDA to put up No U turn signs

We have waited for the clarification after Balaji spoke. And MDA or Boon Yang has explained. In his measured email to a journalist Sue Ann Chia, he carefully laid out the rules and the rationale behind MDA. What amounts to is that all the U turn signs have been taken down and new No U turn signs will be put up. Blogs or forums that are deemed to have been clearly political would be notified to register. That makes the situation so much clearer. That also speaks well of the govt's willingness to engage the people, explain its policies and be transparent about them. Maybe we were expecting too much for Balaji or any govt official to respond directly in the forum or in YPAP forum when posed the question. The official media has been an unlevel playing field with advantage strongly in favour of the govt. I hope they don't waste time trying to defend this position. In the case of forums and blogs, it is also unlevel, but strongly against the govt if it intends to. There are several good reasons for this. First, the forumers and bloggers can be anonymous. Now, no govt official is going to respond to an anonymous writer. Two, forumers and bloggers can inflame, scandalise, make sweeping statements without justifications. And three, they can use the full vocabulary of vulgarities and throw them at whoever they pleased. So, agreed, it is not fair and one cannot expect govt officials to engage in an anonymous forum or blog. But they can come in using terms like MDA officer or its equivalent. What is good now is that we can continue to post, and seriously, until such time when we receive a notification to register. Let me quote Boon Yang: 'We encourage the free flow of information and exchange of views within our political system. However, for political debates and discourse to be constructive and taken seriously, people have to take responsibility for what they say and should not remain anonymous. Facts must be ascertainable and arguments examined.' On the part of anonymity, I disagree. The forumers here, though anonymous, are mostly responsible. And their views are serious. It is not a truth to claim that a forumer who uses a name will be truthful and responsible. If there is a need to, many of us here will readily furnish our names to MDA without hesitation. We are using a nick for convenience as this is after all cyberspace.

the lynching of the klan has started

The Americans have had enough of the Klan in the White House and Pentagon. The first high priest to go is Rumsfeld. Several retired generals have spoken openly for his removal for causing the fiasco in Iraq. Who's next, Cheney, Bush or Rice? The bleeding of American boys' blood in the barren desert is getting to be too painful. And the saddest thing is that, it was all because of a bluff. American boys dying for a lie, not a national cause. How stupid can the americans be?

other views on the crooked bridge

Bad boy (Singapore) PM Abdullah decides the causeway will not go. With this simple decision, he has removed three issues that plagued relationship between Malaysia and Singapore. There is now no need to fight over the supply of sand, the use of airspace over Johore, the building of a bridge at JB. Malaysia saved over M$500M, maintained sovereignty over its airspace and will not fear the enlargement of the island of Singapore. Now, it has only to deal with the issue of water supply to Singapore. Malaysia holds all the aces as Singapore need to buy water from Malaysia. media_junkie (Malaysian) Pucat in the face! Muka kena sapu arang! What kind of a PM is this? How to take him seriously on anything. He calls you to take arms against an enemy and you do it, half way through pulling the trigger he will say pull back. You think your enemy going to listen to him? Mati la kita? Gozie Trust me, end of the day we will sell our air space and sand to Singapore! First we lose our demand to increase water price, we lose on mycard, we lose on the bridge, we lose everything, dude the above are just some views i extracted from littlespeck.com. the comments were anything but the economic benefits of building the bridge. it is all about tic for tac, winning and losing, national pride and historical animosities. why would selling sand be seen as a losing proposition? isn't sand a commodity like oil? if malaysia or any country can sell oil, why is selling sand so disturbing? malaysia will be paid for the market value of the sand. and other countries are also selling sand. it is commerce and trade. one point raised concerning selling sand is not to see singapore growing bigger geographically. now that is a very naive way of looking at things. sand is not a rare commodity that only malaysia possesses. if the price is right, singapore will get the sand from wherever and whoever. singapore is trying to buy sand from malaysia and indonesia as it is only economically sound to do so. why can't the malaysians see it from another angle, that singapore is willing to spend its money buying malaysian sand and malaysia also earns foreign exchange? it is so idiotic. pardon my expression. the other key issue is that malaysia and badawi are seen as weak and giving in to singapore and singapore won! why don't they say, hey, malaysia is blessed to have a professional and rational leader who can make tough decisions based on facts and not on emotions? and singapore will see in badawi a wise and reasonable man and will do its best to support badawi and may even feel that they owe one to badawi. the latter may seen singapore bending backwards to accommodate badawi in the next round of negotiation on other issues. why must the relationship be always so contentious and one upmanship?

lim eng guan's questions on the crooked bridge

Johor's Bridge fiasco by Lim Guan Eng, Secretary-General of opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) Apr 14, 2006 Media Statement Petaling Jaya - The cancellation of the scenic bridge is an expensive billion ringgit lesson for the BN government not to engage in reckless commercial adventurism that is contrary to professional and comprehensive planning and costing.... Finally Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had no choice but to back down and cancel the scenic bridge due to legal complications and implications as well as negative response of Malaysians towards the trade-off in sand and air-space concessions demanded by Singapore to agree to the construction of the bridge. The question on every Malaysian’s mind is why were these legal complications and implications not considered before the government undertook construction of the CIQ for nearly M$1.3B. As the New Straits Times reported that even if Malaysia were to build the crooked bridge on our side, we would have to get Singapore’s consent before we even touch one brick of the Causeway to link it to the bridge. What is the use of paying so much money to appoint legal experts if they fail to give the proper legal advice?... However there should be proper planning, discussions and costing. Amongst the main objections, were that the Singapore government that upholds transparency did not know the cost of the bridge nor comfortable with the opaque nature of the contract that is estimated at billions of Singapore dollars. The above quote is only a small part of Lim Eng Guan's question on the crooked bridge saga. His first point about wasting expensive legal fees for poor legal advice is valid but looking for answers to a commonsensical problem that do not even need legal advice. Any layman would be able to tell him that if you want to build a bridge into another person's land, you will need his persmission. A bridge has two ends, not one end hanging in the air. His other criticism about Singapore not knowing the actual cost of the bridge is a little naive. If I have no need for a bridge and no intention to build it, why would I spend millions of dollars asking for quotes and paying engineering and professional fees? All Singapore needs is a ballpark figure just for discussion. This is the key difference between the Malaysian and Singaporean approach to an objective issues. Singaporeans plan first and do later. And also pay later. The Malaysians in this case chose to do first and pay first, then think later.