what george bush and prince charles have in common

In an article written by David G Myers fo the Straits Times Myers described Bush as a leader that made decisions, especially foreign policy decisions, based on his gut feel. He quoted Bush as saying, 'I know there's no evidence that shows the death penalty has a deterrent effect, but I just feel in my gut it must be true.' Very much like he got this gut feel that Saddam Hussein must have WMD and he launched a war in Iraq. Bush was also quoted to have told Larry King in an interview: "If you make decisions based upon what you believe in our heart of hearts, you stayed resolved.' The other leader of compatible leadership quality and wisdom is none other than Prince Charles of the British throne. This was what Charles said, 'Buried deep within each and everyone of us, there is an instinctive, heartfelt awareness that provides - if we allow it to - the most reliable guide.

we have decided. this is the way to go

This issue of throwing the door wide open to welcome foreigners as citizens is a case where people can agree or disagree with the govt's policy. The govt has made its calculations based on its own premises of what is good for Singapore. No doubt that the govt has done its homework and think that this is the only right way to go forward. And looking at how the main stream media jumps into it so quickly to support the policy wholesale, one begins to doubt the sincerity of the MSM in this issue. Are they just towing the official line or they really believe in it? But this is besides the point. The MSM has its right to believe and throw its weight behind any issue. What is interesting to note are the voices that disagree with this policy. Hopefully disagreeing with it or criticising it is not seen as anti govt or undermining the govt's policy. This is applicable to many issues. The people agree with many govt policies but pick on some that they don't agree. Often this little divergence of views is looked at with great disapproval though the mantra today is that the govt agree that they did not have all the answers. We have seen many policies that have gone wrong but continue to be pursued relentlessly. And any opposing views are frown upon and viewed at unkindly. The concerned Singaporeans are also interested in the wellbeing of the country and people. And every Singaporean has a stake in this country and has a right to air their concern. The only difference is that they are not in power to decide to go for alternative options. Just because the govt is empowered to make decisions, does not mean that decisions are always right and good for the people. The people are seeing the issue differently and can be right and the govt wrong. And unfortunately for such a decision, and with everyone singing hallelujah for now, the disapproving views may be drown. But the consequences of such a decision will only surface in the long run and it will be too late to turn back the clock.

let's recall the dad's army to serve the nation

Why do we need so many headcounts? Never heard of computerisation, mechanisation, multitasking, job redesign and restructuring? Also, if everyone is made to work until 80, we would have increase our productive population by a few hundred thousands, and with little development cost. With the stroke of the pen, retirement age at 80, we can put many people back into the job market

who is the biggest pirate of intellectual properties?

The champions of intellectual properties carry a big stick everywhere they go trying to catch the violaters and illegal operators. The pirate CD operators, the publishers of pirated copies of books etc. All will be booked when they are caught. But when you are big and appear to be doing a proper business, you can copy anything you want, stealing intellectual properties and selling them in the international market, and making billions in profits, and get away with it until you are caught. But because you have so much financial muscles, sometimes it is ok when caught, to threaten to counter sue the owner of the intellectual properties, then compromise and settle out of court with a minimal sum, and continues legally with the pirated material. Now after the settlement, it will not longer be stealing of intellectual properties. Who is the biggest pirate of intellectual properties?

living with truths or OB markers

Bloggers and forumers should stay away from trouble by staying within the OB markers. That is the cardinal rule. And Singaporeans accepted this as a right thing to do. Accept the OB markers without asking why. But what are OB markers? What about speaking the truths? Are truths offensive or threatening to OB markers? Should truth be not spoken if someone decides to put some OB markers around it? On the other hand humankind have been living with half truths or lies and be very happy with them because no one cares to put OB markers on them. Did Mr Brown got into trouble because he spoke half truths or because he crossed OB markers? If the case is one of half truths, would it be a civil way to tell the whole truths so that everyone is enlightened rather than to shut him up? What if he is telling the truths, maybe from his perspectives, and given the short article he could not clarify every detail, that they appear as half truths to others? And for that, or not for that, he was closed down because of OB markers? The issue is whether we should be living our lives with arbitrary OB markers imposed on us by demigods? There are obvious OB markers that everyone should avoid even if nobody says so. These are things that could cause social unrest or attacking people personally, libel etc. But if it is a case of politically correct or incorrect according to the OB marker maker, then it is a separate thing altogether. Not all OB markers are objective and good for the nation and people. Some may be good only for the OB marker maker.