distorting the truth, mr brown

The is a heading in a reply from K Bhavani, Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, to Mr Brown's article on rising cost of living. Bhavani's point is that Mr Brown must use his real name to make comments or criticisms and not hide behind a pen name. Funny to insist on Mr Brown using his name when most people know who he is. It is like if an author writes a book under a pen name, then the book is not written by him. A second point is that Mr Brown was criticising, like the whining Singaporeans, and not offering constructive criticism and alternatives. Who's job is to come out with solutions? Who is being paid market rate to solve society's problem? The people are the customers that civil servants are paid handsomely to look after. Using the word 'serve' may be asking too much these days and some might find it offensive. Isn't it the right of the people, or customers, to complain when they are not satisfied? Isn't it the duty of the civil servants to look at the criticisms and try to come up with a better solution? Why ask the customers to come up with solutions? Are the customers paid to come up with solutions? If yes, I think many customers will willingly come up with solutions. Then we don't need civil servants anymore. The people will provide their own solutions. Why should the people pay the civil servants if they cannot come up with solutions and pass the buck to the people? The food is not properly cooked. The wine tastes bad. The service is lousy. The TV does not work. These are the common complaints of unhappy customers. Now the management is going to say, please come out with an alternative solutions. Criticisms and complaints are not constructive. Bhavani's third point, 'Mr Brown's views on all these issues distort the truth. They are polemics dressed up as analysis, blaming the govt for all that he is unhappy with. His piece is calculated to encourage cynicism and despondency, which can only make things worst...' Now this is an unfair criticism and even an accusation that Mr Brown is attacking the govt on the pretext of criticism. Under the same interpretation, this post will also deserve the same branding as Mr Brown's comments. I think it is all in the way people see and accept criticisms. What Mr Brown wrote can be seen as a feedback, that something is not going down well. Why must it be seen as polemics, as an attack on the govt? Is it not the right of the people, as citizens, to air their grouses? How else is the govt going to get some genuine feedback if airing of grouses is seen as attacking the govt? Now there is another definition of a partisan player in politics. One cannot be a neutral critique. In the past, one is deemed as partisan if one joins a political party. Now, when you criticise the govt, or air your grievances or grouses, you are partisan. Is this what an open society should be?

myth 32

'Progress Package - to help lower income Singaporeans cope with higher costs of living.' People may disagree with me for calling this a myth. My reason is that if it is to help the lower income Singaporeans with higher costs of living, it is only temporary and enough for only a short period of time. How much would that help? It is like throwing a couple of dollars to the beggar. After the two dollars are spent, it is back to square one. The problem is still there. It is also a myth in the sense that many Singaporeans look at it as a hongbao, a handout or spare cash that will come in handy. Unfortunately it is not to be. All that was given will be taken back in one way or another by some other increases. So not only there was no gain, after a while, it will be eaten up by all the increases. It is giving but not giving. It is something you receive in one hand and give out on the other, and give out more than you receive.

myth 31

'High cost of living is necessary in Singapore. With humans as the only resource in Singapore, therefore it's necessary to mantain high cost of living so that 90% of the population do not accumulate excess wealth.' by Orwell76 I am not sure whether to call this a myth or a national policy. I culled this from a posting by Orwell76 in the YPAP forum. The argument for this is that it is good to keep the people half full so that they will not be lazy. Another reason is that this will prevent the people from passing down too much wealth to their next generation and make them a parasitic generation, living on the handme downs of prosperous parents. This assumes that people who are wealthy from old wealth are going to suffer eventually when the wealth is gone as they would not be able to generate the same wealth to keep them going. The first problem of this assumption is that this is not really true as some of the new scions are very capable to producing more wealth. And for those who fear this, the next logical thing is to keep accumulating wealth, the more the better, to ensure not only 3 generations to be wealthy, but 30 generations. That is why many succumb to the evil of greed. And they keep lining up their pockets through legitimate and illegitimate ways till they are caught and their pockets emptied. Now is this an official policy? Robertteh quoted the Goh Keng Swee Doctrine ie keeping the people hungry and fighting fit. If this is true, then the heartlanders will be hardlanders for a long time, kept alive, half full and never be rich. And some policies of HDB actually support this thinking, like making it very hard for heartlanders to upgrade to private properties by making them pay a high market subsidy price that is pegged according to their income of 30 years, literally in debt for 30 years. And also the levies to be paid on the profits made when selling their flats. etc etc. Is this a myth or not?

england out of the world cup

Many must be drowning their sorrows last night after their favourite team lost out to Porugal by penalty kicks. England has always been a favourite to this little island of former British subjects. Despite more than 40 years of independence, the link and bond between the two countries have been very strong. Singaporeans will talk about the Premier League as if they were there, watching every match. Singaporeans are more familiar with the Brtish football scene than anyone else except the brits themselves. Thanks to the daily coverage of the Premier league by the media. All the who's who of British football are well known here. Even what they eat, what car they drive, how many times they need to pee, are common knowledge and exchanged over a cup of teh tarik or in the pub. We are British in many ways. Our likings, our favourites, even a subconcious desire to speak like the British ala the recruiting of British native speakers to teach our children the British way of good English. Britain is still our model of a society to emulate. We are British at heart, or at least for those who are above 40s. The interest of the younger generation may vary and may be a bit more international, but as for football is concerned, it is still British. Now, how could England be out of the World cup? Every day Singaporeans are being fed with the exploits of the British football stars, how good and how legendary they were. Names like Beckham, Owen, Rooney, Gerrard, Lampart etc etc are household names. And when watching the Premier League, they were mesmerised by all the great moves of their favourite stars. Last night was lights out for the British stars. The next few days will be reports after reports of the missed opportunities and how England could have won. Yes, they will be whinning and brooding over not being able to see England in the final again. It is a sad Sunday morning to start the week.

a post by Joe Public in redbeanforum

Increased youth crime rate is caused largely by absent fathers. We have seen two groups of working age adults emerging. One group will have received psychological, social, economic, educational and moral benefits. The other group will have been denied them all. The first group will have grown up with a father present in the house. The second group will have not had a father present.

In order to be divorced in the past, one mate had to be proven adulterous. Legally, one party was deemed guilty and one was innocent. That finding affected each party financially and socially enough so that most couples tried hard not to divorce.

In the late sixties, the "sexual revolution" began and couples rebelled against the constraints of marriage. The addition of more grounds for divorce and the elimination of the need to appear in court made it easier for couples to split.

Now there are "no fault" divorces which further decrease the stigma. By late 80s one out of two couples divorced. The divorce picture is not all rosy. Divorced uneducated women get by with less or no income.

For their children, this translates into less money for school activities, clothes, opportunities for traveling and learning, day care and sometimes food. Children can be called on to do adult tasks before they are ready, like caring for younger siblings. Older children may be required to work long hours at a job to help bring money to the family.

As a result, they may fall behind in their school work. After a while, the child may feel it is hopeless to try to keep up and decide to quit school. At this point a girl may decide to get pregnant and bear a child. She may feel that in doing so her life will have more meaning and she will receive unconditional love from the child. More girls from divorced families become mothers. For boys, leaving school generally means a succession of low paying jobs or life on the streets.