What's the fuss?

I did not really follow the on goings on what Aims were trying to do, to regulate the internet, when the govt is talking about liberalisation. What Aims is trying to do and what the govt is trying to do appear to be contradictory. One argument is that you need rules before you can run free. Quite true. But rules are aplenty and is all we got. We have rules and laws against sedition, scandals, libels, pornography, false or misleading information and also the mother of all laws, ISA. What more do we need? The only area that is really troubling the authority is political openess. How much can one say against a political party, in this case the ruling party. The simple line to be drawn, or has always been there, is truth and facts. If you are telling the truth, then why fear the truth, why ban the truth? Admittedly, two persons' truth may disagree, my truth against your tooth. Often such things will be a matter of interpretation or opinion. But the truth must be the truth and not the tooth. So what is the big fuss? We should know better. My position thus, is still the same. There are already enough rules and laws to regulate the internet. And everyone is responsible for his postings and can be hauled up by the law or another party to answer for his rambling. A little fine tuning of the current laws may be necessary to take into account this new technology, terminology and how it works. What the blogging community should worry about is how the laws are to be applied and whether they are fair and just. Then again, how to be fair and just when what is fair is in the eyes of the beholder or the one holding the big stick? Can the opposition party organise a cycling event? Oh yes. But would it get a permit to go ahead?

$126 mil to instal screen doors

SMRT will spend $126 mil to instal screen doors in its stations to prevent people falling onto the track accidentally or intentional. Another $29 to instal CCTV to monitor such incidents. Should these money be spent to prevent people from jumping on the track if they already planned to do so? If that is the case, HDB should instal grills on every floor of flats to prevent people from falling. For those who wanted to jump, such measures are a complete waste of money. Even the CCTV is only good to tell you what happened after they have jumped. For accidental falls, some minimal railings should do. If the MRT reasoning is valid, then screen doors must be erected to all the roads to prevent people from straying onto the roads. We even need to block out all the canals to prevent people from falling in.

It is going to get uglier

600 residents of Serangoon Garden signed a petition against the conversion of a school to house 1000 foreign workers. This is the first time we are seeing so many Singaporeans standing up for their rights. And they have a good and valid reason to speak up. And Lim Hwee Hua acknowledged that it is good that the residents are speaking up. This is the best and most direct feedback coming from the people. The problem is why can't the govt see the problem? We are too small, living too closely together. Bringing in a few hundred thousand foreign workers is going to eat into our private and social space. And there are all the good reasons for the residents to fear for their safety other tha the general cleanliness and orderliness of their neighbourhood. We must stop fooling ourselves that we are as big as America and have a lot of open space to accommodate all the foreigners. We are no bigger than JB! The social consequences and price we are paying are too big. Those living in their little palaces may not feel the crunch and the squeeze. But don't forget that more than 80% of the population are going to face these foreign workers and rub noses with them. I am waiting for the day they run riot and refuse to go home or back to their quarters. We will see how law and order can be restored. This is a sickness of small people with megalomaniac dreams.

Blessed are the corrupt?

This is the heading of an article by Maria Siow, Media Corp's bureau chief in China. She was commenting about the anti corruption process going on in China and how corrupt officials were allowed to return to hold positions of responsibility. She has not been back in Singapore for too long. We have this Yellow Ribbon Campaign and reformed criminals are welcomed back to lead a normal life. Some, the more talented, are still praised in the media and given high paying jobs. She should not be grumbling and thinking that the Chinese are doing the wrong thing. People made mistakes. Give them a second chance, especially the talented ones. Perhaps the Chinese are learning from us and are becoming more sympathetic and compassionate, and forgiving, like us.

A tragic comedy on CNA

I stumbled over this programme aired after 8.30pm over CNA last night. I was attracted by the topic, ‘Are citizens the new minority’, an issue which we have been talking almost everyday in cyberspace. There was a female, stated as a MBA student, a bright adolescent, an older man with age on his side and presumably wiser, and two young men, one a co host of the programme and another whom I am still trying to figure out what he was or is. He didn’t say much and throughout the programme appeared a bit lost. Oh, the older man was the other host. As the programme got on its way, I started to wonder what kind of programme it was. I was expecting something serious or at least intelligent from CNA, and I can’t accept anything less. Could it be a comedy or just a light hearted talkshow? The key question that was popped subsequently was the meaning of being a Singaporean. The MBA student, a new citizen, still new after 14 years, could only manage to say she was proud to be a Singaporean. The adolescent was honest by declaring that he did not know what a Singaporean meant. This is the best proof that we should shelf our nation building programme. The older host was laughing all the way, not knowing what he was laughing at. He was the jester of the show. Neither did he volunteer any explanation or definition of the term Singaporean. He just laughed it off. The other young host was at ease with himself and his profession. He just talked and talked, which was what he knew best and did best. As long as he was talking, he had done his job. What came out of it, meaningful or meaningless, was not his concern or cup of tea. The other young man, oh, he was listening intently, and by the end of the programme still probably trying to figure out what was going on. If it was meant to be a serious discussion, they picked the wrong guys and gal. Either too new, too young, or too old or too ignorant. If it was meant to be a comedy, it was tragic, a tragic comedy. Singaporeans new and old, young and not so young, all five of them did not know what a Singaporean meant? Don’t they ever knew or heard of what nation building is all about? Why nation building if being a Singaporean is not important or no better than being an immigrant or a foreign talent? If we can easily throw away the concept of a nation and being a citizen, then we need not be bother about nation building, and neither is it important to call ourselves Singaporean. Forget about National Day Parade as well. Maybe that is what we have become, stateless. We don’t even know the difference being a citizen or belonging to a country and a non citizen. And the old juvenile in the discussion told them, and over the air, that Singaporeans must grow up and accept all immigrants here, welcome them with open arms. His simple reason, or simplicity, is that we were immigrants, So the immigrants and us were the same. Didn't he want to know why our forefathers were immigrants and forced to come here and built this nation? My goodness, what is the message coming out from that programme? I hope CNA should give a pre warning or notice on the category of such a programme. If it is meant to be a fun talkshow without substance, then tell the audience. If it is meant to be a serious discussion, say so, and make sure the main casts are up to it. Discussing about what is a Singaporean must be done by well informed and knowledgeable people. Not jokers or people who just talk for fun as a profession. Maybe it was all meant in jest. I am being too serious and expecting too much.