Myanmar junta split

A report supposedly from London, to give it that sign of authority, but no names mentioned, said that 'A split has emerged within Myanmar's ruling junta, according to exile groups which claim that second in command Gen Maung Aye was angered by the violent crackdown on monks and portesters ordered by Senior General Than Shwe. It was also reported that Gen Maung Aye was holding talks with imprisoned opposition leader and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi....' Reading these two paragraphs, one will get the impression that Maung Aye is a moderate and decent guy. But next to this paragraph is a write up of Maung Aye. It reads, 'Deputy Senior General Maung Aye,...has a reputation for uncompromising ruthlessness even more notorious than that of Senior Gen Than Shwe...Indeed, Gen Maung Aye is believed by some to have been behind an attack on Ms Suu Kyi's convoy...in 2003 from which she barely escaped with her life.' What is the paper trying to say? Maung Aye a nice guy or a bad guy? Or it is the way the paper is casting doubt on the credibility of the report? Or it was just pushed out without reading? The stark contradiction cannot be missed by professional journalists that double and triple check their sources to validify their reports.

Should the people save?

Less than 30 years ago, the top prize for the Big Sweep ticket was $400k compares to today's $2 million. Hitting the top prize then was to become a rich man. The money could easily buy 10 semi Ds. But if this guy were to put the money in the bank to earn interest, to save, he is relatively a poor guy today. Even if the amount is doubled or tripled, he could not afford a decent semi D. For less than $20k, one could drive off a brand new Mercedes 200. Today, not even enough to pay for a cheap weekend car. Is saving a good thing? The Americans may be doing one of the smartest thing. Spend the future money now and pay the debt in the future with depreciated currency. In that way they get the full value of the money today. The qualification is that they must be able to pay later. Why the obsession to make the people save when the end result is that the saver gets less than what he gets at the end, the value drops significantly? Who benefits from such a scheme? Not that saving is bad. But it is bad and a poor way to manage your money if inflation and the cost of living is not controlled. This is the dreadful thing. For every 2 or 3 % interest gain, inflation may double or triple and the money, though growing in size, is actually losing its value. Saving is a big farce if other factors are not managed properly to protect the value of money. It is quite wicked actually.

Forever young

A good looking hunk walked out of a joint with a nubile young girl in his arm. His hair were dressed like Elvis Presley. His eyes were hidden behind a pair of sunglasses. But he sure looked good. They went back to the hotel nearby. They were hardly a minute in the room when the girl ran out screaming, 'Taupok Man, Taupok Man.' The hunk was lying on his bed, shirt off. He breathed a sigh of resignation. What to expect from a man of 85? It was not cheap to pull the skin for the whole body. Again another scream from next door and a duck ran out screaming, 'Taupok Aunty, Taupok Aunty.' The hunk shouted, 'Are you alright Mum?' 'He didn't like my body skin!'

The brutal tooth

ST's editorial today highlighted the plight of the marginals, those whose wages are 'barely at subsistence level.' To these groups of workers, about 300,000 of them, the editorial has realistically put it, 'that more cash in hand for living expenses makes more sense than having a little money placed in the CPF.' Their problem is immediate. They don't even have enough to eat or pass the day. You want to force them to cut a piece of their flesh to keep for tomorrow? Savings is a privilege and a luxury that they don't have. And they are not so dull as not being able to think that saving is good for them. Helping them is not just words. It is hard cash that they need, now and also in the future. Disregarding the judgemental part, that some of them deserve to be in that pathetic state of life because they were lazy, reckless and irresponsible, these are the people at the bottom of the barrel, the scavengers of society. They do not have enough to put aside. Want to do anything for them?

A new amazing tooth

I woke up this morning to face a new tooth. It is splashed across the front page of the ST that $2.8 billion a year over the last 5 years 'to fund grants and top ups that benefitted all Singaporeans, especially the lower income.' And a typical lower income household received $136,000 worth of basic grants, which helped to build up their retirement savings! Now why am I feeling so poor. Maybe I don't qualify for the $136k of grant. That would make those who qualified richer than me, for I don't have $136k! Am I feeling shortchanged? And all those lower income households must be beaming a wide smile or they are secretly happy but not telling. And with so much money going to them, especially 'to build up their retirement savings' why is it that they did not have enough for retirement? Where is the money? Oh, sorry, this is a dangerous question to ask. Erase this question. Let me ask another question. If so much money have been spent for the benefit of the people, and the people could not feel it, could not appreciate it, then something is drastically wrong. It may be the method, the spread, or not publicising it enough in the media. The PR part is failing. I think a more simpler and effective way to make the people feel the generosity and the weight of the subsidies is to put the money directly into their pockets. Then they can feel the bulge, touch the money and smell the money. The people will kneel down and pray to the govt like god. Unfortunately so much money have been spent on them in a way that the people don't even know. It is a big wasted effort, and a big waste of money spent. You ungrateful people! But can't blame them. They are simple minded people that can't think and didn't know what is happening. They don't even know that they have received so much money.