myth 39

'Singaporeans have a good sense of humour' I think most people will agree that we need to have some humour in our life, and humour makes life that more pleasurable. And I would also think that Singaporeans too have a good sense of humour. But lately I started to change my mind. I think not everyone are equipped with a sense of humour. And the type of humour is also very important. Black humour is acceptable. Any colour of humour is ok but make sure it is not brown humour.

japan should recolonise the two koreas

My last few postings on the rise of Japanese militarism were intentionally very provocative. Just like what I am going to say about the two Koreas. Germany and Vietnam were divided but have long reunited. One fought all the way to unite their homeland, the other came together out of a true sense of nationalism and pride as one people. The silly Koreans are still being kept apart, posturing to kill each other. One a semi colony of the USA, being used as a pawn in the politics of big powers. South Korea is very useful to the Americans as a foothold into the Chinese Northeastern flank and be a constant pressure point to apply when needed. But what is more treacherous is the Japanese ambition to recolonise the two Koreas. It may not be in the form of the 19th century, but it will be another kind of domination. Look at how cocky the Japanese are these few days, threatening to do a preemptive strike to North Korea as if it is another cakewalk. The Japanese really despised and look down on the Koreans, once their subjects. And as long as they are kept divided, Japan will eat them up in bite sizes one at a time. They deserve to be colonised by the Japanese if they don't wake up to the danger they are in. Good luck to the Koreans. Long live the Japanese Empire!

boost to the insurance industry

The latest call to provide insurance coverage to board of directors will give a big boost to the insurance industry and insurance agents. Directors in charitable organisations can be covered up to $1m against suits brought against them in the capacity as directors of the organisations. As explained and reasoned, "They jiak kopi only,..." No pay but work only. Not sure about work, but why jiak kopi only? I think anyone whose job is jiak kopi only should also be protected by insurance. But wait a moment, does jiak kopi means doing nothing? Just attend meetings, jiak kopi and then go home and tell people I am director of this and that big organisation? Would not appointments to positions of responsibility, even jiak kopi and do nothing, come with some responsibility? And would such insurance covers negligence and wrongful acts or criminal acts? Shall all the CEOs, or MPs etc, especially MPs and politicians who are sacrificing for the nation be also covered by insurance to protect them from lawsuits too? After all they do not want to be politicians but were called to do national service? Whatever, it will be good for the insurance industry to have more insurance sold, for the right or wrong reason.

myth 38

'It(Singapore) has created a national mindset of compliance and obedience, giving rise to a generation of "play safe" Singaporeans who lack initiative and enterprise.' by Seah Chiang Nee in Littlespeck I think Mr Brown has just proven that this is a myth, and Seah Chiang nee is wrong. What Mr Brown has written, though in a humorous way, is an expression of disagreement, and not playing safe and lack of initiative as subsequent events have proven so.

constructive debate?

Now Vivian has spoken. Actually there are many points that he raised which are very interesting and deserve for more discussion. But I will just touch on this comment, '...If someone says something we disagree with, we will say so. If someone says something which is unhelpful, we have a right to say it is unhelpful.' And 'He added that what is important for Singaporeans, particularly on serious issues, is to have an honest and constructive debate with no extraneous agendas involved.' Taking both comments into context, there should be constructive debate and a right to reply. The only tricky part is the 'extraneous agendas.' What does it mean? Lets leave this aside first as we will be guessing what all the way. Now, the Brown episode. Mr Brown may have written in a humorous way, he has a good sense of humour which sadly many don't, on a serious issue affecting many Singaporeans. He was serious in what he said. But what was the official response? There was an official reply, alright. But was there a constructive debate? I think everyone will find this part missing. It was a talk down approach. No need further discussion. Mr Brown had touched on something unacceptable, crossed the OB line. Out you go. Where is the engagement and constructive debate to rebut what Mr Brown had said? Couldn't the official postion be one where a point by point rebuttal be more constructive and helped to explain the situation better, that what Mr Brown written were not necessary accurate. Won't it be better to say that 70% of the population are earning more and more and are not affected by the rising cost of living, rising fares and fees? Why wasn't the engagement mode be used to debate on an important issue but instead a disengagement mode be adopted? We are the boss. We do not have to talk to you. You are now history!