A new buzz, a fiasco

There is a new kind of buzz in town, one that is being repeated quite often these days and would tarnish the Singapore brand. We are reputed as a country where all things work. Once we put up something, we can sleep in peace that it will be successful. The University of NSW closed down after only two months and with 148 students, Singaporeans and foreigners, stranded. It would not happen if it was a Singapore run university. We don't do this kind of things. But even if it is an Australian university, it happens in our land and we will somehow be linked to it. Our Singapore brand cannot keep getting this kind of bashing. And the students were only told after the decision to close was made and announced. Well, only 148. No big deal. Anyway, they should expect such things can happen to a new set up that does not have a Singapore brand. It is caveat emptor. They went in with their eyes open and knew the risk. In a way it is also a kind of progress for Singapore. It shows that we are taking more risk and even risky projects that were not well thought through and with insufficient finances. This is good for Singapore as we will become a riskier country that encourages everyone to be more cautious and risk aware.

Return of the Knight

It is good that Glen Knight is allowed to practise his trade again. He had gone through very rough time and had paid a very heavy price for his mistakes. He took the punishment gentlemanly and quietly and had lived a life of a reform man, in the wilderness. Though the reason to take him back into the law fraternity was because of the good words of eminent lawyers, I am more impressed by Knight himself. He is every inch a repent man. He went about his life in his darkest hours, alone, far from the main stream of all the glamorous happenings. He could be a very rich man today if not of the lapses in his life. He deserves to start life anew, albeit too late. He was out cold for too long for not too major offences that he committed. It is good that he is given a second chance.

Legalise insider trading

A letter from a Charles Tan in the Today paper suggested that insider trading should be legalised. There is nothing for me say when people cannot see what this will lead to. But this is another brutal truth. When one is in a position of power or authority and accessible to sensitve information, connections etc, it is ok to take advantage of the situation to fatten one's pocket. Are we ready for the Singapore of the future?

Why is Singapore trying to explain the IDR Committee

Why is Singapore trying to explain the IDR Committee Why is Singapore taking on the task to explain to the Malaysians that we have no interest in meddling with Malaysian affairs or taking over the sovereignty of the IDR through the joint committee? It is a red herring that we should not be involved. The more we try to explain a stupidity, the more will stupid people read into our intention when there is none. The IDR is a Malaysian proposal to be developed in Malaysian soil. To have Malaysians questioning their own ability to manage the IDR and even toying with the fear of losing their sovereignty is unbelieveable. Unless the Malaysians are really that low in their ability to give away their sovereignty without knowing. Maybe this is possible and their concern is real. Don't they have talented people to manage the IDR to their advantage? And maintaining sovereignty within one's soil, with the full support of the law and the law enforcing agencies, you do not need much brains to do that. How could the village chiefs even think that it is clever to suggest that it can happen? Singapore is best to shut up and let them play their own political wayang. It is not very clever of us to try to explain away their self created paranoia.

Age of citizen journalism is here

And this is what the media big bosses are saying. Their comments are justified by the coverage of people on the ground, at the scene, shooting and relaying information and pictures to media organisations to broadcast or put into prints. Handphones and digital cameras are very handy tools for the coverage of instant news. And there is the great happenings at Youtube with everyone trying out their flair and showing off what they have shot. What the media gurus forget to say is that citizen journalism is journalism of the people. The people choose their agenda and report things they want to report. This is a huge difference from what one reads in the media when the content is chosen by the editor. Now the citizens decide what they want to write, print and shoot and read. My denture almost fell out when I read this statement from ReuterTV's senior producer Jahabar Sadiq who cautioned against the bias in such material. "I 've seen videos that were edited and shaped in such a way that they presented just one point of view...News agencies will still be there to provide a neutral point of view - a view that has integrity and is created by professionals with very good editorial policies.' He said. How much is true in Jahabar's statement? 10% perhaps. All the news we read are edited and shaped in such a way that they present the views of the journalist or that of the media or broadcasters. It is often a one sided view. A neutral view? What a load of bullshit! And integrity, created by professionals with very good editorial policies? Integrity in what? Good policies according to who? The only thing professional is that the people are professional people being paid to do what they are told to do. Only in citizen journalism is there independence of thoughts and ideas reflecting what the citizen sees, hears and reports, of course with his taint of biasness. At least the citizen does not pretend to be neutral and objective.