will kalteng be haze infamous?

It has been weeks since Yudhoyono made his famous apology to ASEAN countries affected by the haze. And the haze only gets worst by the days. Maybe only after a thousand apologies will the haze budge. This morning, a Straits Times journalist, Edwin Khoo, posted an article about his site visit to his hometown in central Kalimantan, Kalteng, and his first hand experience of what it is like to live in haze. He posted a pic which showed that visibility was less than 50 metres. Now that is a small living space. The seriousness of the haze envelope can never be felt by the decision makers in Jakarta unless they are forced to live in such an inhospitable condition. Otherwise corrective measures will just take its own time to be discussed in the comfort of aircon meeting rooms with more coffee and tea. With such an intensity of haze affecting the Indonesian villages and the villagers having no one to stand up for them, it is not unimaginable that one day people will stumble across villages in some parts of Kalimantan and Sumatra strewn with corpses. Many villages can be wiped out by poisonous haze, or maybe some have already been gone without traces. The haze can be more deadly than the tsunami and more widespread if nothing is being done immediately to stop it. Is the Indonesian govt waiting to see dead bodies before actions can be taken? Further, the Indonesian villagers may start falling dead slowly over a longer period of time after the haze has disappeared. How serious is the damage to the people's health is still unknown as the worst affected areas are not reported or visited by modern civilisation. Would the next report from Edwin Khoo be about Kalteng, a province totally wiped out by haze. Will Kalteng become infamous as the cemetry to mark the begining of the fight against the firestarters?

first MP to resign?

Cyberspace suddenly came to life because of this little girl's blog. Even after it has been shut down, the storm continues to blow. And some of the anger are now directed against her father and the party. Looks like she is becoming a liability. Are we going to see the first MP to resign because of a controversial post in Cyberspace? Bet against anyone that this will be a hot potato in the next election.

myth 80

Myth 80 'Your money is not your money' When you think that your money is your money, think again. The people have just donated $500k to the family of Tan Jee Suan, the MRT jumper. Would this money go to the family? Are people having ideas on how to manage the money which is not theirs but rightly belong to the family? Can anyone direct this money to other charities? Can anyone tell the family that they have a right to do what they think is best for the family and start to make all kinds of plans and arrangements even if the family objects? Whose money is that?

fear of copycat of mrt jumpers

A forumer wrote to the MSM, can't remember his name, about the possibility of a deadly trend coming our way. His fear was based on the $500k donations that the public donated to the family of the MRT jumper, Tan Jee Suan. It is like striking lottery, but paying with one's life. The big heart of the average Singaporeans must be commended for their immediate and sponstaneous response to the plight of the jumper's family. The average Singaporeans are still very caring. There was a hawker who donated $10k. This is probably twice his monthly income. Back to the fear. The possibility of imitation jumpers cannot be ruled out. In the midst of all the prosperity, there are still many hardluck cases that no one knows. Desperate people will act differently under a different kind of logic. Whatever it is, lets hope no smart alec will come out with more rules and regulations to regulate the hearts, feelings, emotions and compassion of the people. The area to look at is to reduce such painful stories. How to make sure the less fortunate and less able are not caught in a crunch of ever increasing cost of living that are affordable. Obviously all the increases is not affordable to everyone. Giving money and asking people to come forward to beg is not a good suggestion.

my new paper article is here

Below is my original article for The New Paper. The emphasis was slightly different. The main drift is that a couple with a $2000 monthly income, net $1,600 after CPF, cannot afford to have children. The cost is just too much for them to bear. The latest case on the MRT jumper, Tan Jee Suan, vindicated what I was driving at. With two school going kids, and a less than $2000 income, they are dead meat. Many Singaporeans are in this trap, unfortunately still in blissful ignorance of the road ahead. They are going to bring a lot of pain to themselves and their innocent children. The children will be deprived no matter how much love and care the parents can give. They will have to depend on charity to get by. Can you afford to have children? The older generation used to have ten or a dozen children running around. And the children still grew up like any children would. Some even made it to be successful entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors and even Prime Ministers. Is this a formula to emulate for the new generation when there is a dearth of babies? Some say so. Go, go forth and multiply. It is nonsensical to think that the affluent new generation cannot afford to bring up half a dozen children when their poor parents could handle twice that amount. What were the motivations for the earlier generation to do what the present generation think is irresponsible or a thoughtless thing to do? With their lack of education or ignorance, clueless may be a better word, they did what they did the nature’s way. Many just did not know what they were in for or just did not bother. Tomorrow was not their problem. The children, they would grow up and that’s the way things were then. Some were thoughtless, that is for sure. Then some were very thoughtful. They were planning for their retirement. They needed someone to take care of them when they were no longer able to. What better ways than scores of children to ensure that at least one would make it, like tikam tikam. There are of course many other reasons for having or not having babies. The considerations today are more practical. For discussion purposes I will treat this from a single dimension perspective, the issue of affordability. How much? That is the key question. Figures of $277,000 or $400,000 have been quoted to bring up a baby to a graduate adult. Maybe these figures were just too comfortable. Go for the bare minimum, say a ball park figure of $150,000 for 25 years to include all expenses, food, clothing, allowance, tuition, medical etc. The four years in a local university could easily cost $50,000 with $24,000 going to tuition fees alone. Forget about overseas education. Ok, I agree that some can get by with just TLC and fresh air. For simplicity, divide this sum into 3 distinct phases, pre natal and birth to 12 years old, 13 to 21(including NS) and 4 years in university, with $50,000 each. This works out to an average of $300, $400 and $500 per month for the respective phases. Now who can afford this kind of money? Any couple thinking of having a child must be able to fork out $150,000 or a multiple of that for more children. Assuming a couple needs about $1,600 nett income a month, or $2,000 before CPF deduction, to live decently, they will need another $300 to $500 for a child. Simply put, if the family’s take home pay is less than $1,600, they cannot afford a child. Unless they are prepared to bring up a child who is always envious of the normal things that other children have. Isn’t that mean? And to be content with a life depending on charities, handouts, grants, or applying for subsidies all the time. What kind of existence is that? A child is meant to be a bundle of joy and not a burden of 25 years? And the thought of having more than one, 4 or 5, is honestly, thoughtless and totally irresponsible for those earning less than $2,000. Shall we encourage couples with less than $1,600 take home income to have children? Or shall we say ‘Go forth and multiply, Mr Rich!’ Let’s not burden the poor unnecessarily by asking them to bring more financial problems to themselves and a pathetic life for their children, unless help is provided in a dignified manner.