Who is more lusty and alluring?

Another get it all wrong concept. The hot and sexy debate of giving free drinks to women is getting all the wrong reasons and explanations. Should the issue be the number 35? Many will be turned off by the the young sluts that look anything but a lady. And many ladies well past to the wrong side of 40 are simply gorgeous and will turn every head. Fantastic as a prize catch for the night. Now, what's the problem? The reason for giving free drinks is to attract all the sexy women who in turn will attract all the sexy men to spend their money in the pub. All the kids in the management of the pubs should wake up to their ideas and look at the issue clearly. What they need is not ladies night but Come and Get Me Night. Women who are dressed to kill and give the inviting look should be allowed to get their free drinks despite their age. The gate keepers should be briefed to open the gate when they see one that is worthy of the come get me look. Better still, call it the Slut Night. Be proud to be a slut and be rewarded with free drinks. That is the crux of the issue man, not age.

Playing fiddle to the ox

The Chinese has this ancient phrase from the sages, playing a fiddle to an ox. What it means is simply that the ox cannot understand or appreciate the finese of music. LKY was interviewed by Berita Harian on the IDR issue. And again he took pains to explain how Singapore support the IDR on a win win basis. How could he expect the tribal chiefs to understand and appreciate such a win win approach when both parties would benefit from the cooperation? The moment they hear the word 'win' for Singapore they will go hysterical, deranged. How can Singapore win from this? Singapore is going to win more from this. Malaysia will win less, will be taken advantaged of. We cannot let Singapore win. It is a wrong approach, a wrong strategy to use the win win approach. They will not want to hear such an explanation. If Singapore is to be accepted in any deals or agreements, it is of utmost importance for Singapore to explain that it is a win lose agreement. Malaysia will win and Singapore will lose. Then go ahead and tell them how much Singapore will lose and how much Malaysia will gain. Only then will they be comfortable with the deal. And the onus is on Singapore to list out all the disadvantages and losses that it will have to face up with. They would not be able to think or see it for themselves. Let's negotiate and work on a win lose basis.

Memories of a property bust

It wasn't too long ago when property prices were driven sky high and let to a financial crisis. Then punitive measures were taken to curb the incessant demand and price increases. It was just a bad dream. Don't bother with it. Now all efforts are channelled to build hi end world best properties and at ethereal prices. Obviously many Singaporeans are not going to be beneficiaries to such exuberant enthusiasm. Several million dollars price tag are beyond the means of many Singaporeans. It is only for them to ogle. Then build all these high end properties for who, for what? Is this the best way to use our scarce land resources? And the profits from such sales and developments, for who?

CPF - A bugging feeling

Cpf is the people's life saving for their retirement. By the ever increasing withdrawal age, it appears to be an elusive dream. Just when one is about to touch it, it slips away again. The apparent slipping away act has led to many wild speculations that there is not enough money in the CPF. But the official position is to keep it a little longer for the people's own good. Hold it back a few more years, and the money will grow a bit more. It is such a nice feeling to know that one will have a big sum of money in the CPF at 90 if the withdrawal age ever reaches that number. For as long as the purpose of keeping the money for old age is still tossed around as the reason, it may still be tolerable to some. What if the retention of CPF is to allow the funds to be used in some mavericks' investment schemes? There is this bugging feeling that the CPF is a cheap source of fund for investment. And the longer it is retained, more funds will be available to do a lot of things. Th0ugh this may not be the case, people's imagination simply run wild. What would be most undesirable will be for people to incorporate CPF's savings into their financial planning. This will be contrary to what the CPF is all about. Investing CPF money should be a secondary objective, a kind of a need to grow the money since it is there. Not to make the funds available and withholding it from the people. Now why would people think that this may be the case?

Press must not forget freedom and democracy

Anwar is of the view that though socio and economic developments are important, an equally important aspect is the promotion of freedom and democracy. What is the point of having social and economic growth when freedom and democracy are stifled or strangled? Does the press think that social and economic growth are good enough and they can rest on their laurel as long as the people are fed and clothed? When the people are hungry, such needs are important. But after these are looked after, shouldn't the press move forward to a higher goal? Andrew Taussig, a trustee at the UK's International Institute of Communications, commented that 'It would be rashed to assume that there is a co relation between the two (press freedom and economic development).' The Singapore Media thinks that they are contributors of the economic development of Singapore by following the rules of the law of the country.