Human Rights - Confucianist version

Long before the western world talked about human rights, Confucian had clearly defined what human rights were meant to be. These rights were enshrined in the principles of destiny or fate. People were born to be kings or workers and all were expected to live through their destiny in the best they could. A king shall be a good king and shall rule the country in the best way he could. For that he is bestowed with all the powers and authority to do as he pleases as a king. The people who are born to be workers shall be examplary workers, be they carpenters, taxi drivers or production workers. They shall just put in all their energy and effort to be good workers. And that is their right. The ministers or government officials shall be good government officials and manage the country for the king. They shall all be obeyed. The father shall all be good fathers and children be good childrens etc etc As long as everyone does his part and live within his destined life, live responsibly and does not interfere in matters outside his realm of existence, there will be order and peace on earth. That is the Confucianist version of human rights. Everyone has the right to live his or her life as what he is born to be. And I believe all the Asean countries will love to live by this version of human rights.

Myth 167 Condor Heroes

Condor Heroes For those who are familiar with this Chin Yong's martial art serial, they will be familiar with the art of left hand fighting right hand. This is a skill mastered and taught by the infantile old master Zhou Bo Tong. Whenever he was bored he would use his right hand to fight his left hand. Of course both hands would never be hurt. And he could fight for as long as he wanted, it is just another kind of wayang kulit. This is a good skill to learn and apply in modern living. Let the right hand fight the left hand, sometimes right hand lose, sometimes left hand lose, or whichever one so desires. The master is still the master.

Human Rights in Singapore?

'It should not be there just for the sake of advocacy. Human rights issues have to be conginzant of the society they are applied to, and the degree of sophistication of the country and people.' Baey Yam Keng This has been the talk of the town since we took over the Chair of Asean and people are expecting that Singapore should take some kind of lead or leadership in promoting human rights. In my view, Singapore does not need any human rights organisation not that we are not sophisticated enough for it. Also our society does not need a human rights group for the sake of human rights movement. We are free from human rights abuses. Compare to all the Asean countries, no one can come near us as far as human rights are concerned. We are the best. Even the US, the champion of international human rights, is our best friend. That speaks volumes for our human rights record. Other countries should follow our examples on human rights and treat their people as fairly as us. We deserve a medal from the US and the UN on human rights.

Better taxi service and higher fare

There were several suggestions in the Today paper on how to improve the taxi service and increase the income of taxi drivers. But none is better than my suggestion for a $10 flag down rate. This $10 is not only effective, it will make everyone happy. First, because it is a bit more expensive than the present $2.50 rate, it will deter those who cannot afford the new rate to take taxis. Then more taxis will be available for those who can afford it. And they will be happy. Those who have to give up taxis can take our efficient and comfortable public transport system. For taxi drivers, nothing better to say. With $2.50 already some profit. With $10 they should be happy and encouraged to make our taxi profession a first choice profession and better quality service. And for the taxi operators, they can increase the rental rates too. See, everyone happy.

Price to keep a killer as pet

Investigation revealed that the rottweilers had attacked the son of a friend and required about 10 stitches. The AVA ordered that 2 of the rottweilers must be given away. So the owner will still have 3 at home. Is this good enough measure to keep the dogs from attacking another human bean? What the AVA should introduce is mandatory caning or imprisonment for the owner should any big dog attack a human bean. This will put the responsibility squarely on the owner and they will have to take all precautions to prevent such an attack. The current penalty is too little and will not be a deterrence and owners who have a lot of money will willingly throw the money at the unfortunate victims. The owner of big ferocious dogs must be made to bear the pain and suffering of their victims. And the fine must be very heavy, maybe $100k, and the licence should also be up, $10k a year. That should be a reasonable price for the right to keep a killer as a pet.