of corporate cheats

'There is little social sanction for cheating when so many people are cheating that it becomes normal and routine,' said Mr David Callahan, a co founder of the New York based think tank Demos and author of The Cheating Culture.... Americans have long been tolerant of cheats in business...We admire the rich, even if they broke a few rules to get rich, he added. The above is extracted from an article by Matthew Lynn in Today paper. He added, 'So you think the average corporate chief is lying cheat. Well, you haven't seen anything yet.' Are we in the same boat? Are the local corporate big wigs also the same as those of America?

does asean approve of the military coup?

Indonesia has its own form of guided democracy under Suharto and the military. Singapore is seen as a paternalistic democracy. And to some western critics, it is a dictatorship democracy. Now Thailand has its own version of military democracy. What is so different about this new version of democracy? In the words of Gen Sonthi, 'The junta will only select the prime minister. The new prime minister will choose the cabinet.' He then added, ...but the military could have places in the new cabinet and 'act as advisers to the interim govt.' He forgot to mention that the military could remove the prime minister or the whole govt if it deems fit. Now this is not democracy really. It is a step back for the country, moving towards the direction of Myanmar which Thailand took objections to. Why is ASEAN, the champion of democracy and human rights, stood silently in the face of these developments? Shouldn't ASEAN interfere like it did in Myanmar and warn Thailand about slipping back to military rule? Does ASEAN approve of military coups?

don't switch on the light to benefit your neighbour

'In a front page story in Utusan Malaysia yesterday, they were quoted as saying that projects that benefit the Republic such as the proposed high speed train should be cancelled, given that Singapore does not appreciate the sensitivities of its neighbours. They also said Malaysia should not take into account the Republic's interests when implementing the South Johore Economic Region plan.' Is this meant to be a joke? And Singapore is invited to participate in the development of Johore? Looks like they will switch off their lights as the lights will also light up their neighbours courtyard.

to say or not to say, or to bury the truth

I accept and agree with all those who said LKY should not make those comments. The comments were definitely not diplomatic and will ruffle feathers across national boundaries. But I am glad he said it. On the grounds of humanity, human rights, equality, fairness, etc. brutality, discrimination, victimisation, bullying and marginalisation of a people because of their colour and ability are unacceptable, and the world must stand up to such bad practices. That is why we have human rights movements.

foreign talent - the discussion so far

After several rounds of discussion with fellow bloggers and forumers, two distinctive views emerged from the pro liberalisation of foreign talent policy camp. The first point that was strongly emphasised by this group is that the govt does not owe the people a living, and it is not responsible to provide jobs for everyone. I can accept this view to the extent that those who are not trying to help themselves will not be the fault of the govt. The people must first look after themselves and be prepared to fend for themselves instead of depending on the govt. On the other hand there are many who are doing all they could to prepare themselves to compete in an increasingly tough environment, slogging through all the years through tuitions and university or polytechnic education, and they deserve a fair chance in society. To this group, there is a social obligation, my view, that jobs shall be created for them. We cannot be like other countries producing tens or hundreds of thousands of graduates that are jobless. I would like to hear a politician standing up and say openly that they are not responsible to create jobs for Singaporeans. I will definitely pin up the speech in my forum, on stickers, to be remembered. The other point of view is that Singaporeans must tighten their belts and compete with the foreign talents. And if they failed against the foreign talents, they deserved to be losers. Because they are no good and do not deserve to earn a living here. This kind of thinking can only come from those who think that they are better than foreign talents and will never be replaced by them. Unfortunately this kind of smugness is misplaced. The foreign talents are not only smarter than our local talents, even the very best, they are also hungrier. Our best are from a minute pool of 3 million people. The best of the foreign talents came from a pool of 3 billion people, from two ancient civilisations well known to produce brilliant people. Our talents will be a mixed match when they have to compete against them. I have mentioned that maybe only a handful will survive such a challenge if not protected. It is easy for people whose jobs are protected, or at least in a better off position today, to advocate full liberalisation of foreign talent policy, welcome all with open arms. They will regret it one day when they too will be displaced by them. But if that is the end that we are looking for, the continued survival of the city state regardless of who lives here, then by all means. But if the city state is for its citizens, called Singaporeans, then there is a need to be more circumspect in this policy.