The gay debate

It must be a very interesting debate in Parliament and many interesting things must have been said about gays and gay rights. I have not been following and could have missed many issues that were discussed. What I would like to know is how big is the number. In the case of mental illnesses, there is a 1 in 6 hit rate. If the gay population is also 1 in 6 then the issue is going to be with us for a long time. Historically, or biologically, human beans are meant to be male or female. The deviant genes that created the 70% or 60% male or female are rare and societies could live with it, either accepting their presence or outcasting them and deport them somewhere. Today, gays seem to be everywhere and getting rid of them or pretending that they don't exist is no longer a solution. The two camps arguing about gay rights did have their valid points. And I think Parliament did make a wise decision under current mindset and acceptable cultural and religious values. As we go down the line, how would the people accept two guys necking and kissing in the train or the bus? How would the public deal with cases of boys being raped by men? The office or public places will become very colourful with men looking like women and vice versa. We might even have to build new toilet facilities for the male, female and either or. Strange that Singapore is now the battle front for gay rights and what we do could set the direction for the movements in the future

Police and their handling of civil activities

The MPs had a field day asking Ho Peng Kee about how the police handled the public especially with regards to the wearing of T shirts with printed messages and holding of public forums. The way the police handled T shirts seemed to be the key attraction after the White Elephant Incident. And it seems that they are still doing the same thing in the case of the Myanmese protest against the military rule. And Ho Peng Kee was rather apologetic and tried to explain away as over reactions. I think we should be easy on the police after all they are there to protect the people. They have the people's interest and safety at heart. They are just doing what other police forces are doing so cannot be too far wrong. Just make sure they don't take on the style of Rela officers or the Myanmese police then we should be quite ok.

notable quotes - Ho Peng Kee

'The police have no intention to monitor what takes place online...Neither should Netizens, bloggers and the many of us who regularly send SMS messages worry.' Ho Peng Kee The is the strongest and clearest message coming from the govt that they are not monitoring cyberspace activities. I believe Ho Peng Kee is telling the truth. The police have many more important things to do than to waste public resources on such activities. The only time when they start to monitor is likely to be in response to some official complaints. And those two doggies that were trying to mess up my blogs, disappeared recently, were definitely not from the police. As where they were from, your guess is as good as mine.

The msm need to be with the people

PN Balji continued with LKY's discussion, in the Today paper, on the role of the msm and their need to reinvent themselves in the face of the sprouting out of more alternative reportings and commentaries in cyberspace. The advantage of cyberspace, in being free, real and human like, talking and reporting with character and feelings, is hard to beat. And then it is interactive and responsive, it is the people's own news and views. Not something that is being forced onto the people. The people can relate and take ownership of their own news. LKY's comment of not just reporting the whats but the whys is going to put a challenge to msm reporters. For many of the whys cannot be reported succintly. And there goes the credibility of msm. And according to Balji, they need to be creative, sensitive, meaningful and responsible. Quite a herculean task. As a political trophy, hmmm, how to report in a way that is objective and balance is going to be tricky.

Making the annuity bullshit real

There are so many things that the people are gasping in disbelief. The small payout and the payout age at 85. Both seem so unreal and irrelevant. What the govt should do is to address this bullshit seriously and come out with something that is real. The $300 is definitely not going to be enough and either you provide for a reasonable sum, or might as well don't provide at all. With inflation and the depreciation of money, in 30 years time, the minimum for subsistence existence could be $1000 pm. Then at that age, you need life supporting equipment, weekly or monthly medical checkup, annual checkup or overhaul. Other than the subsistence allowance, the medical part could easily be another few hundred thousands. How much then is enough? Half a million or one million? If this problem is real and we need to address it as a real problem, then the bullshiting must be realistic. And the 85 years payout age. This is a joke.