30%, 40% or 50%?

How much do you want to cover, 30%, 40% or 50%? This was the response from Foo Yee Shoon when Lily Neo when the later asked for more assistance for the poor. This reminds me of the same kind of response in the last Parliament sitting. You want to eat in hawker centre, foodcourt or restaurant. And both reponses came from the MCYS. That must be their style of discussions. Lily Neo was right to reply that that was not what she was asking. And I think she deserves a more appropriate reply than a challenge to her request for more help for those who need it. What she did not expect was a retort when all she did was to ask for more help. But some people may disagree with me that the response was a challenge or a retort. Fair enough. It is all a matter of interpretation.

Ah Kong's child

The love child, the accidental child, the no priority child, now we have Ah Kong's child. In the 70s, the third child, sometimes by accident and also known as accidental child, is frown upon. He/she will face life with a lot of handicaps. No priority in many things. Always last in queue even for schooling. Ah Kong has changed his mind. Ah Kong is getting in age and wants more children. Today, 3rd, 4th, 5th or more, will become Ah Kong's child. Ah Kong wants them and will pay for them. The mother is simply a surrogate mother, producing the babies for Ah Kong in return for some cash or compensation. Will these Ah Kong's children be getting any priority in life? Not very likely. Will Ah Kong change his mind one day? Or will Ah Kong suffers from dementia and claimed that he is not responsible for their being born into this world? Will their surrogate mothers bring them here out of love or out of money? And if the later, what happens when money runs out?

Not innocence after acquittal

Our legal system is built on the foundation that a man is innocence until proven guilty. Now we are hearing in Parliament that a person having been acquitted in court can still be presumed to be guilty or not innocence. On this ground, an acquitted person cannot claim compensation from the state. It is too high a burden on the state, but not too high on the acquitted accused. This issue was raised in Parliament to compensate people who were charged by the govt and acquitted in court. Shanmugam, the Law Minister, dismissed this and was reported over the news that Singaporeans would not agree to it. I don't know what Singaporean he was referring to? The Singaporeans he spoke to, the 66.6% or the 33.3%? I for sure will agree that acquitted Singaporeans should be compensated. Today, going to court is no masak masak. The charge must be serious enough and the accused must definitely want to fight for his innocence. And how much will it cost to prove his innocence? Many will be backrupted for life. It is thus important that wrongfully charged and acquitted Singaporeans must be compensated. If not, it will be another case of guilty for not being able to afford legal fees to defend. We all know how expensive fighting a legal battle here. And we have seen how the rich people threatened people in court and the poor buggers, though innocent, ended having to pay to get out of the legal tangle just to save some money. Engaging a legal counsel to fight for the truth would be too costly for many average Singaporeans. I think our system will be more just if people are not handicapped or disadvantaged by the exorbitant legal fees and ended up being wronged for money not enough. The other alternative is for the govt to provide a defence counsel and the fee be waived on acquittal. How else can the poor losers find justice when they got no money? After rejecting the provision of compensation, Shanmugam added that 'if one can prove that prosecution was "malicious or vexatious", there are provisions in our laws for compensation.' That will incur more legal fees to prove maliciousness or vexation. Who got that kind of money to pay for legal fees to get himself acquitted and then pay for more legal fees to prove such things to get compensated? If the charge was an honest mistake, just too bad. Singaporeans will just have to accept this system as it is.

Go forth and multiply...be careful...

The message is loud and clear. Produce as many babies as you can. There are so many perks, goodies and money to be had. So why not, it is like striking lottery. Before the ordinary people get carried away and reopen their child bearing factories, a little caution is warranted. Do not create more miseries. Do not bring children into this world if they are to be deprived of the basics. It is not cheap to bring up children. Unfortunately the unthinking and unable to afford parents will be the one going to produce more, and to perpetuate their miseries as the down and out, producing more waiters and waitresses, more office boys, cleaners and sweepers etc etc People must be responsible to themselves and the children they are bringing into this world. Before they jump in happiness, think again about the future of the children. Can they provide them with enough to live life like normal children?

Have medal can kick asses

We have our table tennis medal. Nothing else matters. Let's celebrate. Forget about Gao Ning. Anyway who is Gao Ning? Did he win any medal? This looks like the message we are getting from all corners of Singapore. It is time for big celebration man. Pour the champagne and don't ever bring up the ugly news. We went to Beijing as Team Singapore. We also believe that as a team, no one shall be left behind. Was Gao Ning left behind? At first I heard that his coach was running a high fever. Then it was another player's coach. And his coach went to help the other player. And he was left to play without a coach. Every player had a coach to guide, to comfort, to sooth nerves, to psychic the player, to be a moral boosters, to be part of a team. Gao Ning was not part of a team? He was not Team Singapore? He played his game alone, by himself, in a world stage for all to see. Is that how we treat our player in Team Singapore? The table tennis battle was brought home. Team Manager Antony Lee was sacked. No, his term expires. No he wasn't sacked. Which is more embarrassing? Who should be sacked?