house of cards crumbling in iraq

The coalition of the willing's invasion and occupation of Iraq is on its third year. Quietly the party is getting thinner with the willing quietly slipping away. The two main protagonists are now left holding the fort and the weight gets heavier. In the last few days we have seen more or less a rebellion by the British. The new army chief, General Richard Dannatt, openly declared that the presence of British troop is now more a problem than a solution. They are no longer welcome and have over stayed in Iraq. Get out now or face the wrath of an increasingly hostile resistance. Next to follow was the British Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, openly slammed the Americans for holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without trial. The British conscience is creeping to life. With Blair fading away, the true British feelings and righteousness are now given some space to breathe and air their objections to this ill conceived war based on deception and misinformation. As Richard Dannatt said, '...we weren't invited by those in Iraq at the time....Let's face it. The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in. That is a fact.' It may have taken all three years to know the truth. But it is better late than never. And if the British troops are out, the American's presence is that much less tenable and it will be America against the Arab/Muslim world. And the Iraq Episode II shall be screened live to all the households in the world.

myth 77

'Thrift and Prudence are virtues we cherish' Being thrifty and prudent in our finances and our spending habits are age old wisdoms that can do us a lot of good. And many people have made glowing speeches about such virtues and how and why we should all not be philanderers and spendthrifts. Were these speeches made with a genuine intent or a publicity gimmick not to be believed? I must say that I am pleasantly surprised that the HDB finally caught up with such virtues and chewed on the ideas of prudence and thrift. If one cannot afford to buy a bigger or more expensive flat than one's income, one must not be encouraged to do so. Is there a change in mindset or philosophy? How many policies are conceived with thrift and prudence in mind? Is the $3k ceiling to demand people whose family income is above this sum to buy bigger flat in line with such thinking? Are the means testing to determine why certain people must spend more in more expensive hospital wards in the same mould? What about the practice of scrapping cars that are in good working conditions to buy another new car? Is this kind of habit prudent and thrifty? The most prudent and thrifty policy is perhaps the measures or pricing and taxes imposed on water usage. To encourage people to be mindful of the water they used and be thrifty, they are made to pay very much more for their water through higher tariffs, taxes and pricing. The people will all end up very thrifty in water conservation, even taking lesser bath and in double quick time. But their water bill tells a different story about thrift. What about asking the poorer hardlanders to have more babies?

feedback, reach or blackhole?

Amy Khor has described that the Feedback Unit was once a Blackhole. Things only get in and nothing gets out. Ver daring. Now with the change in name and a bigger reach, would things still be the same? 'Public consultation is now part and parcel of all major policy initiatives.' Hsien Loong said. 'Through the process of consultation, discussion and engagement, we can get Singaporeans to understand issues better, build a consensus on the direction forward and a common vision of Singapore.' Active Citizenry is now encouraged even through blogs. Does this means that all blogs by citizens or just those created by Reach? I have posted the case of a couple wanting to buy a 3 rm flat instead of 4 rm in this blog. Apparently for the couple to write to the press they must have hit the wall. No one is going to review their case. The policy cannot be changed. Their problem is that their monthly income exceeded the limit for 3 rm flat marginally and they are not willing to spend too much money on a 4 rm flat. There are many people out there who are very careful and prudent with their money and would not want to be caught in the one upmanship lifestyle. There are a couple of anonymous bloggers responding to my post and instead of engaging in a discussion to explain the policy, they started by attacking me on a personal basis. To them the policy is right and anyone who complained and air disagreements are stupid and disruptive. Where did they come from and why are they setting themselves out to attack other people's views? These are the new thugs in cyberspace. Instead of reviewing at the straight jacket solution, their minds are closed. No one can disagree with govt policies. Would setting up Reach make any difference if such people were to be administrators of govt policies?

spend what you have

A couple wrote to the Straits Times forum pleading with HDB to allow them to buy a 3 room flat instead of 4 room flats because their combined income is more than $3000. This $3000 limit qualification to buy 3 room flat is another one of those outdated policies of anti thrift and forcing people to spend more against their wishes. Why must people be forced to eat sharksfin if they do not wish to? Many policies are in this genre. If you have some money, you must spend what you have. And when the time for retirement comes and you have no money left, it is your own funeral.

schools of the future...got future or not?

I have posted an article on how the banding of schools could help to release the competitive nature of schooling and also reduces stress among the parents. With more schools being banded together as good instead of a few, it is a big relief. The social stigma of being in a lousy school can be unbearable and embarassing. While streaming and gifted programmes laid on the wayside, now a new concept is up, futuristic schools, all 15 of them. Concepts aside, how good are they in creating value and becoming relevant and useful can be discussed in a different platform. But how would another 15 schools add or lessen to the stress of parents? Will parents now see this as another in thing and their children must be in these Schools of the Future or their children will have no future to look forward to? It would be good if these 15 schools will add into the current pool of IP, Independent and top band schools to give parents more choices for their children. If we have 50 or more schools of different brands and shades to be considered good in the eyes of parents, then more of them will be happier as more children can be accommodated in these schools. Let there be more 'good' schools and more happiness around.