The nightmare that is coming

Another 10 or 20 years, many more Singaporeans will be in their 70s and 80s and 90s and still alive. All rich and happy with plenty of money in their CPF accounts. And thanks to the advancement of medical science, they will live to a ripe old age. Some may make do with a walking stick, some with a motorised wheelchair. Slow and a little feeble, life goes on. And in their midst, young, strong and sturdy foreign workers abound and plentiful. It is so tempting to take from the helpless and physically weak uncles and aunties. It is so easy. Will we see an increase in old uncles and aunties being robbed in broad daylight? Will old uncles and aunties fear living their homes? Will this nightmare visit us?

When cops doctored evidence

Lance Corporal Rohaniza, a key witness to the murder case of the Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu said that the police doctored her evidence. What she said was not what the police recorded and she was under harassment and pressure from the police who wanted to record what they want. This is a clear case of blind loyalty, where justice, right and wrong were sold away to protect people in high offices. When civil servants refused to think about justice, when they blindly accepted orders, the country will go to the dogs. How is it that civil servants can be so corrupted or feared power to become accomplices of crime against fellow citizens? Do they have any conscience or they can be easily bought?

political justice

Thaksin was ousted from power as the Prime Minister of Thailand. And what followed is a list of charges of corruption and misdeeds. His properties confiscated and his family members, practically everyone of them, is facing criminal charges or hefty fines. And there is a warrant out to arrest him and to extradite him from England. All these seem so right to the power of the day. No one questions the truth or validity of all the charges. It is political justice. George Bush commutes the jail terms of his former aide, Lewis Scooter Libby, after the latter had been charged and convicted in a court of law. Whether he is a friend, or a former aide, is not in question. He uses his power as the President to do what he thinks is just to him and his friend. Another kind of political justice.

Not in Our Name

This is the title of an artile by Asim Siddiqui in the Today paper. He challenges the Muslim intellectuals to take on the extremists who have hijacked Islam for their terrorist acts. He is against the Muslim extremists for using the western foreign policy of aggression against the Muslims as an excuse to wage a war of terrorism against the West. I fully agree with him that acts of terrorism, or as the West legitimised it by calling them acts of war, are unacceptable, immoral, and a primitive way of settling conflicts and disagreements. The Muslims should find a better way to tackle the West so that they will be treated better and as an equal to other human beings with a right to determine their way of life. But short of having the biggest gun and the biggest bomb, a language that the West understand, there is really nothing else they can do unless the West voluntarily gives up war as another way of bullying the rest of the world. But I find it hyprocritical in Asim's defence of England as a target of Muslim terrorism. He said that compared to the US, the UK has very few troops in Iraq. And the level of British troops in Iraq will get lesser and eventually no British troops will be there. So Britain should not be attacked. This kind of logic is the logic of the bully, where might is right. The British can go to Iraq and burn down the place. That is acceptable. And once they vacated Iraq, all must be forgotten. The British soldiers are no longer there. So leave Britain alone. What rubbish! If this kind of logic is what the world should live by, all the criminals should be spared. They have left the scene of their crimes. The British and the West must realised that if they start a fire, they must be prepared to be burnt. There is no escape.

Political Party Manifesto 3

The paternalistic policies of the PAP is from hole to hole, from cradle to grave. It is their policy, though not officially put, to manage the life of the people from the day they pop out from the hole till the day they drop into a hole. That is what the CPF is all about. What is the stand of the other political party on this? Do they also agree on this policy, that should they come to power, they will also manage the people's life in the same way? Or would they plan it differently? Under the present scheme, it requires a lot of savings from the people to provide for a flat, hospitalisation and retirement, excluding other uses that the CPF money can be released. On a broad brush basis, everyone would need $600k(for a 4/5 rm flat paying instalment over 25 years) plus $30k for Medisave and another $120k for retirement. These works out to $750k or $25k a year over 30 years, or approx $2k savings a month. Anyone with less than this amount will have nothing to take out at 55 if this withdrawal age is maintained. The first time they will get their monthly stipends will be 62 or 65 or 70 or whatever. It would be good for the other political parties to get feedback from the people, get in touch with the people and ask the people what they really want from them. This genuine connect with the people is essential as we enter another phase of our development when the people got sick of being treated like handicaps and never ever grown up children. The forever young policy will soon be a pain in the arse and it is a matter of time when people will insist that it be thrown out.