myth 33

'Political power passes from father to son' This has been a very popular myth that has been circulating in the kopitiams. And it is a myth that needs to be debunked after having been around for so long. Actually saying it is easier than done as many people, no matter how logical is the argument, will still want to believe in this myth. LKY passed the baton to Chok Tong. Who said he passed it to the son? And Chok Tong passed it to Hsien Loong. Who said Hsien Loong received it from the father? The facts are there but people just stubbornly refused to accept it as it is. Run it through a computer and the answer is absolute. Talking about the human mind. We believe what we want to believe. The next point related to this myth is the assumption that because it is father to son, so the son is not worthy but got into the position by patronage. Even this cannot hold any water. Who in the cabinet can stand shoulder to shoulder to Hsien Loong? Don't compare him with LKY. That is not a fair comparison. No one can stand shoulder to shoulder with him. Oh, yes, the only person that stood taller than Hsien Loong is Chok Tong, physically. Look at the total package, Hsien Loong still stands a head above Chok Tong, with all due respect to him. Both first class honours. This is a comparison of giants. Anyone with a second upper or lesser, please stand aside. And Hsien Loong's is a double first from Cambridge, the top university in Britain. And his military record, a general and a hero who has saved lives. This one has no comparison. Then there are the additional plus factors. Who else could have the rare opportunities of having two brilliant parents to rub shoulders with and share the genes? Who else has a wife that is equal to none, academically and in achievements? All these are added assets that only Hsien Loong has. So the son is not as good as the father? Maybe not now, but the future is there for him to create. Even if he cannot outshine the father, it is no shame as not many people worldwide can outshine him. And the realities. Since Hsien Loong took over the rein, the economy has been up and up. And unemployment is down and down. And there are so much money to give to the people. Who can do that? So there goes the myth.

Vice and heartbreaks - by Seah Chiang Nee

I must hasten to say that the majority of China women here are simply earning an honest living and are not cheats or prostitutes. But a large minority is fiercely ambitious, seductive and prepared to use any means to get rich, including seducing men into an affair or marriage, then cheating them and returning home or moving to another man. Swindle cases are on the rise although some men are too embarrassed to go to the police. The victims range from retirees to middle-aged married men with grown-up children. This easy use of sex has revealed just how vulnerable Singapore’s older men are despite – maybe because of – their conservative upbringing in which sex was regarded a taboo subject. After decades of “pent-up” frustration or deprivation, some are becoming easy prey to younger, prettier women intent on seduction. It also brings into question the sex health of some older Singaporeans. Other men are just lonely souls living drab lives. A letter from “Elisabeth” says: “I feel worried for the ‘old uncles’ in Singapore. These elders are really simple-minded, blinded by temporary pleasures. “They thought these Chinese girls really liked them and even gave them their savings. Pity the family.” The above is an extract from Chiang Nee's article in the Star Paper. It is about the controversies arising from the open door immigration policy and how ambitious village girls from China stormed here to make a quick buck from our 'innocent, naive and rich uncles.' In the case of outright cheating, which there were many cases, it is fair for people to point the fingers at the China girls. But it is unfair to say that our men were pure and innocent when you recount the number of China girls being chopped to pieces. These are outright unacceptable behaviour from both sides. But the art of seduction and the price to pay by the China girls in exchange for hard cash is fair game. Prostitution, other than its social and moral stigma, is an honest occupation. The senior citizens and uncles are not that gullible to throw away their money innocently. The China girls did not rob them of their money either. They are offering them genuine good services that the uncles needed. It is fair exchange. Caveat emptor. Maybe we should not put in too much subjective judgement on the players in this game of lust and money. Both are willing and happy partners in the trade.

what's wrong being bloggers anonymous?

There are many reasons why bloggers or forumers chose to use nicknames instead of their real names. To hell with those who insist that everyone who post must use their real names. To hell to those who call bloggers anonymous cowards and all kinds of names. Cyberspace is space anonymous. It is accessible to anyone from any corner of the globe to get in touch with you, in your blog or in your forum. No matter how honourable, lovable and respectable one is, there will be the bolt out of the blue from someone for no reasons, to lambast you with all the worst obscenities you never ask for. That is the risk of offering your face in cyberspace. Even God does not escape being whacked into bits and pieces. So what is there to stop anyone who just wanted to yell at you to resist from doing so? Then why should anyone want to paste his face/name in cyberspace to be targets to be shot at random? For that matter, would any political leaders dare to come into blogosphere or any internet forum using his own real identity? They may get a thousand well wishers for doing that. And bet you, they will get a handful of bloggers who will throw mud and shit in their faces. Cyberspace can be an innocent space but why would one want to invite unnecessary and often rude and abusive comments to themselves? There is nothing wrong being bloggers anonymous. The true worth of a blogger or forumer is in his/her postings. Not just because he/she exposes himself/herself. What is good is good, what is bad is bad. A good blogger or forumer need not necessary have to use his real name. This is a myth created by our society.

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.