Myth 188 - Myth of anonymity

In the absence of legal provisions, netizens are not accountable to what they posted in cyberspace. And to take it one step further, just remain anonymous. Cyberspace thus becomes a lawless world for the irresponsible and those who are out to do mischief. This is far from the truth. Everyone in cyberspace is accountable for his actions and words. There is no escape unless one can really make his postings untraceable. Those who are still posting vicious and scandalous messages are only allowed to go free at the mercy of their intended victims. Once the wronged party decided it is enough, the net will be pulled in and the guilty is not going to get away. The arrest of the paedophiles that posted in crypted messages, twirled his image etc is a case in point. When the law is ready to haul you in, you will be in. No netizen can afford to be irresponsible and feel safe even in cases of libel and scandal. You cannot hide one day longer. It is a fallacy to claim that netizens feel safe to be irresponsible in cyberspace.

The merciless increases in prices

No matter how bad the people are affected by the high cost of living and the shrinking dollar, price increase must be it. No let up, no one is going to bother about how it will affect the people. Just tell them to tighten belt. If they can't, go for charity. And even with charity still cannot tahan, go for more charity. Hospital charges have gone up during these difficult times. I have copied the numbers from: http://singaporenewsalternative.blogspot.com/2008/07/price-watch-updated-10-jul-2008.html Medical SGH inpatient room rates rose in all the 3 classes selection: 1. C class rose the highest by 7.69% from $26 a day to $28. 2. B class rose by 7.55% from $53 a day to $57. 3. B+ class rose by 6.6% from $106 a day to $113. Come to think of it, the increases are small. Very affordable. Ok let's move on. And no one should be blamed. These are private hospitals and run for profit. Privatisation is good. Now cannot blame the govt also.

Be real about CEO’s pay

Roger Hancock wrote to the ST forum on the alarming CEO’s pay here. Alright, compare to the Americans, we are really paying them peanuts. But relative to Singapore worker’s pay, relative to the size of the businesses, it sure is a huge sum of money. And of course these CEOs are still complaining money not enough. I empathise with their plight. Poor buggers. The issue is that do they deserve their exorbitant pay? The way they are paying themselves now is not how much they are worth in terms of how much they contribute to the shareholder’s value but by comparing with another turkey and cry, huh, he got more than me. What utter rubbish. The other way they pay themselves crazy is to show a year of big profit, not really in terms of returns on investment vis a vis what the same money would have brought in just putting them in fixed deposit, but just claim that it is big. A good year! Then comes big bonuses, big pay rises and big share options. Then comes the next year, the next 3 years, company nearly goes bust. Not the CEO’s problem. Blame it on something else. Pay just keep collecting as usual, bonus may cut a little. It is a sure win formula at the expense of the shareholders. Yes, Roger Hancock had a point. Time to rein in the out of proportion pay rises of CEOs. The huge pay they are getting has made the meaning of money or pay obsolete. How could someone justify his pay in the millions? What kind of returns to shareholders is he bringing in,and is it just his effort or the people in the organization or the capital the shareholders pumped in? Roger Hancock concluded by suggesting, ‘Using the considerable govt shareholding power in major Singapore companies to force a greater sense of realities on the over generous remuneration committees might serve to kick start a necessary process of sobering up for the benefit of all’ is barking up the wrong tree. The CEOs are so use to getting huge salaries that anything less will see them marching out and join the MNCs that will pay them much better. And local companies will be left in the lurch and all might even fold up. These CEOs are indispensable and the only way to retain them is to keep paying them more and more.

Forming a new party?

As we continue in our political development, brand name is getting more important. Some 30 years ago, political scientists used to claim, very seriously, that if you put a party’s brand on a donkey, the donkey will also get elected. Today, this message is even more real. People are now identifying more with the party brand than the candidates put up. Who cares what is the candidate? The natural progression down the road is likely to see people voting for parties instead of voting for individual candidates. And this is getting more desirable with more candidates looking more like liabilities than assets. In a way, thanks to the internet, any flaws will quickly be highlighted. There is no escape. Some bloggers will bite like a bull terrier and refuse to let go until a piece of flesh has been torn off. In this sense, the internet can become a very dangerous instrument and cannot be taken lightly. So what’s up Doc? You guess it. Just contest for the parties in year 2069. If that be the case, I would like to form a party too. Now the trick is what name to choose for the party that can instantly be recognizable and will be embraced by the electorates? How about MacDonald Party? It is a familiar name alright. Ah Kong and Ah Ma also know that. But my favourite is Coke. Coke is it? A Coke Party will be a hot favourite. Coke is a recognisable name. Just don’t mispronounce it ok?

Bugging Singapore

The Bugge brothers have been in the news lately, bugging Singapore to let them give up their Singapore citizenships so that they can come visiting their relations in a place they were born. Here we have 3 brothers who chose not to serve their NS and left for their father's country, Norway if I am not mistaken. Many people have read their case and are sympathetic to them. A letter from Yong Yin Min was published today calling for the govt to be less uptight and generous towards its ex citizens who have not served their NS and allows them to return. Such sentiments are fair and we should look at each case for its own merits. Given a choice, it is good to be generous in treating our ex citizens. But the administrators must also be very concern that it may set a very bad precedent and more will take advantage of such generosity and make those that don't look silly. Maybe we should do a time bar or moderate the punishment and not equate it to a life sentence. Let them return with some conditions attached so that no one should thing that this is an easy way out. In the Bugge case, there is a point which I find nauseating. They refused to serve our NS but willingly served in the Norwegian military service/NS. This is a kind of snub that is difficult to accept. Ang Moh tua ki huh? Having said this, the govt can still have a few choices to take. It has made its point by not allowing them to renounce their citizenship so easily. It may want to tweak this and allow them to do so at a certain age, maybe 35 or 40. Or it may just stay the rule and make this as an example to give notice to all not to diminish our laws or to spite us as an unworthy little red dot. As Yong Yin Min has said, we should welcome our children back as they were once a part of us. Many are still out there living a different life, some happily, some with a little regrets. We should find ways to accommodate them without upsetting our system and make many Singaporeans feel like suckers and a few jokers happier.