myth 36

'Singaporeans are fed up with progress...' by Mr Brown. This myth came from Mr Brown's sensational article of polemics. And I must agree that it is a myth, a distorted truth. For Mr Brown is talking only about 30% of Singaporeans, those who are trying to make ends meet. He has not covered the large group of happy Singaporeans, especially those earning $100k or more a month. Even people earning peanuts are very happy. How then can Mr Brown said that Singaporeans are fed up with progress? It is right for Bhavani to chastise Mr Brown for distorting the truth. For if Mr Brown is telling the truth, then there would not be 4 million smiles. Mr Brown's fault is to look at only one small segment of unhappy Singaporeans. The truth is that there are many happy Singaporeans, and Bhavani knows better.

Operation Hush Up is on.

I have been scanning all the papers, official media, tv news, radio news, etc... I have not try Stomp yet, but Mr Brown has vanished. No news about Mr Brown and how he distorted the truth. And all the investigative journalists, anyone interested in covering this incident? I have just taken a peep at Mr Brown's blog, and there are almost 500 comments in 3 days on this issue. Hey is this not news? But it is big news in blogosphere! Any little blog or forum in cyberspace worth its salt will have enough comments on the issue to make it worth reading. It is the news of the day. What happens to the traditional media? Not interested or what? Isn't news be news? Isn't something so hot be newsworthy? Maybe we are all waiting for an official response and take the cue from there. We are all objective reporters and journalists. We are independent thinkers and we write what we think are news worthy, of public interest. If I can't or don't even say something on this issue, I better close down my forum. I don't practise self censorship here. I don't have to read what is safe or unsafe to post. Now, why would people flock to cyberspace for independent news instead of subscribing to the main media? Luckily I did not buy a copy hoping to read something about it. Would I be wasting my money, feeling money not well spent?

the malaysian way!

A Singaporean was robbed after bank teller announced that he had withdrawn RM200,000. This incident happened in Johore Bahru and was reported in the New Straits Times yesterday. After cashing out his cheque and as the Singaporean man was about to leave, the teller shouted in front of 50 customers: "Sir, can you please count if you have RM200,000 before leaving the bank". And the robbers were waiting for him in the carpark, and he was robbed. Could the bank teller be so kind or silly to shout out the big amount for everyone to hear? Isn't there a standard practice that no one is to announce what the customers are doing? I think this must be a new bank and the teller is also new. Banking is also a new business in Johore Bahru. What a joke!

myth 35

'...civil service has become politicised and is "subordinated and even subservient to the political leadership"' I quoted the above from the Today paper's article on Ngiam Tong Dow. It then quoted Simon Tay saying that 'Ngiam's recollections suggest that such comments "go too far"'. Ngaim did not say that it is a myth or that it is the truth. He just said 'go too far'. If the comments did not go too far, maybe could be true. In this case, by going too far, it is a myth. The mandarin has spoken.

going down the malaysian road

We have many things in common with the Malaysians. We are also engaged in many developmental projects, mega projects, some private initiatives and some govt initiatives. All done either to inject funds and vitality to the economy or to make profits for the project owners. But there are subtle differences between the Singaporean way and the Malaysian way. Where the project funds come from, who benefitted, who get the share of the profits and who pay for the profits. There is also another key difference in the conceptual stage. Singaporean projects were normally conceived when there is a need with profits coming in later. In the case of Malaysians, the project was conceived from the profit first basis and generating the needs later. So we have the crooked bridge, a classic example of a project where the need was not there but build up to justify for it, and with how much money can be made as the main reason. Who eventually pays for the project and profit are secondary. Would Singapore go down this road, conceiving of a project because there is money to be made? And get the private sector to pay for all the costs and charge the public for it? I have in mind the underground road system. The Malaysians are expert and single minded in building roads and bridges and railway lines to collect tolls. Not that we are not collecting tolls. The tolls we are collecting are much bigger in scale. But these are schemes that grow out of a necessity, a need. Suddenly the road situation got bad, so the easiest way to kill two birds with one stone is to make the motorists pay and relieve congestion. We have never think of collecting toll as the primary goal, the raison d'tre for building roads. This is the Malaysian way of making money. Not forgetting we are already collecting in the billions from ARF, PARF, road tax, COEs, ERPs, ALS. Aren't these enough to pay for the construction of roads? Aren't the collection of all these fees meant for this purpose? Now where have all these monies gone to that we need to think of collecting tolls as the main reason for the building of roads?