The numbers are numbing

A recent indication of the scope of the dilemma was the rising number of Singaporeans who asked for a document needed to apply for permanent residency overseas. It has exceeded 1,000 a month to reach 12,707 last year from 4,996 in 1998, or a rise of 170% over 10 years, said Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng. These people, over the age of 16, could be leaving for good, but they also included students and businessmen, who may eventually return. In 10 years, they totalled 97,990 Singaporeans (a far greater number if children were included).... By Seah Chiang Nee in the Star online News on Sep 06. These numbers are worrying to some but not to everyone. The more they leave, the more we replaced them with new citizens. What is the problem? Our intake is so big that we have a net gain. Good riddance. This a statement of truth. Singapore is just a social political construct. The citizens are just people given a piece of paper. If all the Singaporeans leaves Singapore, they can be easily replaced by more new Singaporeans. It is a non issue. So no need to cry over spilled milk. And for those who have been saying, if you are not happy here, please leave. I must admit that they have a point. I can read the message clearly. This is the Singapore that I have created. And this is the way it is. You like it, good. If you don't like it, also good. Just go.

Senoko Power sold

Senoko Power is sold to a Japanese consortium. 2 out of 3 power stations have been sold. One more to go. Will we also see the water treatment plants be sold? If that be the case, electricity and water bills will be generated by private companies. And when they raise prices, it will be a commercial decision. These are private organisations are there to provide a service and to make money for their shareholders, just like SMRT and Singapore Bus and privatised hospitals and HDB. One thing that the people can expect is better quality of service and higher efficiency. Good for the people, good for the economy.

Hey you're mad. No, you are.

Would such a statement be sufficient ground to suspect that someone is mad? Would someone heard cursing and swearing at a religious ceremony in the neighbourhood be arrested for disturbance? The law of a state is to protect the people from being harmed. If someone beats you, you are to take up a lawsuit yourself against that person. It is a private matter. If someone disturbs a wedding procession, is it a private matter? How serious would a disturbance be good enough for one to be arrested and sent to psychiatric checkup to determine his sanity? And if the psychiatrists could not find anything after two or three weeks, can the psychiatrists demand that one shall continue to be detained for further observation? How long would such observations become unacceptable? Shall I warn all those bloggers calling people stupid, mad, irrational, fools etc not to do so for their own good? Will such libellious remarks be a problem between the parties involved or can one party insist the other party be sent for psychiatric observation? Freedom of expression or anonymity in the internet has led some bloggers to go shooting from their hips. Some even fabricate stories and half truths. Would they end up under the microscope of the psychiatrists? Oh, the heading of this post is just an illustration only. I am not calling anyone mad.

Matilah Singapura is Alive!

I have to repost this thread here as the original thread is too far deep down and many will miss it. This thread is posted by Matilah in the earlier thread which I started, 'Matilah, wanted, dead or alive.' Nice to know that you are still kicking, chum. From Matilah Singapura. My dear fans, and redbean,Let me begin by thanking everyone for their concern.I hope that I am wanted more ALIVE than I am dead, but then again I have no control over such things as 'other people's opinions' :)Unlike Gopalan Nair, I don't tease the state of S'pore, and challenge them to come after me...so to one anonymous poster...sorry to disappoint. I quit Thailand 2 months ago--at least for the foreseeable future. The political situation is not good and staying there, IMO, is exposing myself to unnecessary risk on several fronts. Frankly speaking the novelty of Soi Cowboy gets old quickly when your office is a mere 7 minute walk away.S'pore is also out of the question--I stopped by for a week or so to recce and decided 'no go'. It's way too expensive (i.e. factors of production), and my margins would be too lean to make it worth my while. On the upside, returns from rentals are the best they've been for years...so the best position to be in is a landlord and to be elsewhere. I am back in Aust, settling into a new home and getting started on projects which I hope will bear fruit. Aust is still very strong economically depite the naysayers. The average weekly wage is now over AUD1k and the spirit of 'can do' private enterprise is the best it has ever been. I have therefore decided to hang-out here for awhile. It is truly a wonderful place, especially now that the weather is warming up!So that's basically an update of my ordinary life. I've posted a bit on Singabloodypore, but my internet time is essentially restricted to an hour or two a day now as my time is taken up with more "social" activites—interacting with real people in the real world. The only reason I stopped by to post this was I did a Goggle on 'Matilah Singapura' and redbean's post was at the first listing. Such is the efficacy of the web!SE Asian politics are, for the most part, a part of my past. It saddens me to some degree that my social, political and mostly my economic predictions (all derived form natural laws and understanding of 'spontaneous orders', like 'markets' and the nature of collectivism) have come true, and Singapore proves itself more and more to be on a path of decay—on many fronts. My ego doesn't require 'stroking'--to be honest, I hope to be wrong.Unfortunately I do make part of my living from using methods to 'manipulate' human conciousness. I'm not the only one who knows how to do this, but I do understand how EASY it is once you know how. I also know that governments use these tools to manipulate their voters, such that the average person lives in a world of MYTHS. As if this wasn't bad enough—the surprising thing is how readily the avergae person will DEFEND these myths from any form of critical analysis or criticism. That is how effective states can be—the people don't 'govern' themselves, they IMPRISON themselves. Anyway, I wish all of you well, and hope you find the truths you are seeking on your own terms. Redbean, it's good to know that you're still blogging furiously. Well done. Warmest regards MS

The AIMS Paper

My general impression of the AIMS Paper is that it is a very comprehensive report on the existing status of internet activities and where to go from here. AIMS stands out as a fairly neutral body and its recommendations were free from the encumbrance that one would normally expect from a govt agency. The only area that it could not help to detach itself from is the need to control and manage political discussions of the people in general and the political parties in particular. The need to control and manage is entrenched in any govt in power. It is in their interest to ban or block any criticisms or comments that challenges their position and power. This assumption that it is normal for the govt to control and manage opposition and criticisms has moderated AIMS recommendation on Section 33 of the Films Act. Section 33 is simply a provision that favours the govt in power. Period. The other recommendations on the protection of minors, crimes, pornography, sedition etc should not see any objections and rightly so, and the Bloggers 13 have left them untouched. The recommendations to remove all the obstacles placed on netizens are welcomed. This can only come about with a positive assumption that netizens are responsible and decent people and can be trusted with the freedom of expression. Maybe AIMS should try to address the issue of a level playing field whereby the power to control and to dictate to the opposition be removed and all parties operate under the same set of rules. Would this be asking too much from the realities of politics? But liberalization of the internet must bring about a freer and fairer environment for all parties if criticisms and cynicisms are to be avoided. Transparency, fairness, soundness of policies will be demanded and anything less will only be ridiculed openly. It demands a higher level of sophistication and consistency in policy making. To liberalise involves big changes in many areas, including how the political games should be played and how the govt conducts itself and its relations with the people. AIMS has recognized that this is a process in its infancy and incremental changes is a better way to go, to learn and change along the way. The govt will have a tough time deciding on how much to let go on political activities, outside and during an election campaign period. A lot of resources and manpower will be needed to engage the netizens, including setting up of many support organizations. A lot of jobs will also be created, maybe even a ministry in charge of cyberspace and netizens be appointed. It is a new constituency. The boldest part of the recommendation is the recognition and acknowledgement that the internet is the future, uncontrollable and unstoppable. The govt is strongly encouraged to step bravely into the future, engage the people, be less uptight, and be less abrasive, be prepared to share the political space with the opposition and people who don't agree with them. This is a tall order. It is a great departure from the obsessive need to control, like pronouncing cycling in the park as dangerous to social security, even harassing young students, that makes the govt looks clumsy and ridiculous. The other positive assumption is that netizens are not the illiterate Ah Pek and Ah Ma, and many are thinking people that can see things as they really are and can contribute to the general goodness of country and society, that is, if they are embraced as part of the whole decision making process, even in a small way like e-engagement. AIMS has invited the govt to take a path into the future that is full of uncertainties but also full of promises and opportunities, to tranform our way of life and how we communicate, a freer and all inclusive society where the divisive line between the people and govt is blurred for the better of everyone. Will the govt bite?