When verbal acrobatics rule the day

When monk tries to justify a high living lifestyle of a millionaire as acceptable in present day, when words were twisted or given new meanings to justify the unjustifiable to the point of being deceitful, it won't last very long when the truth will come crashing down on the philanderers. The people were told to live within their means, buy things only if they can afford while on the other hand people wanting to raise their million dollar salary because a Lamborghini is now priced beyond their reach. What kind of logic are we led to believe in? Put it in simple layman lingo, if you have $1, find what $1 can buy and be happy with it, you losers. But for me, when my toy is now $2m instead of $1m, I want my salary raise to get my toy. Get it? That is my logic. This is the meaning of affordability to me. I make my income affordable, to buy anything I want. For the losers, your income is fixed and you get what it can get for you. The meaning of affordable is being stretched, logically of course, to mean different things to different people. It is like shifting the goal post every year, today here tomorrow there. Let's see how this twisted definition of affordable means over time. Once, a 3 room flat can be paid up with a mortgage of 10 years by a single income worker. That was affordable. Then it needs a 20 year mortgage. A new kind of affordable definition. Without realising it, the meaning of affordable becomes a 20 year mortgage to be paid by 2 incomes. And it went on to a 30 year mortgage with 2 incomes. Still affordable, sure, correct sir. Soon affordability will be defined by 2 incomes from two generations or 4 incomes, including the parent's incomes to buy a 3 room flat. It will still affordable. What else is new?

Nasdaq and BATs to stop flashing orders

'New York: The Nasdaq stock market and BATs Exchange will "voluntarily" stop offering flash orders, a controversial service that gives certain firms an advance look at market bound trading orders....' This is the first para of a REUTERS/Bloomberg report in the ST today. How could any responsible exchange allow this to be put in practice in the first place? To let it go and then to put a stop to it after being investigated is unacceptable. How many of such unfair practices have been allowed into the system? The US watchdog is still reviewing all the 'illegal' and unfair practices and will be putting a stop to them. Top on the list is 'high frequency trading' which gives the big boys an unfair advantage over the small investors. Are such practices criminal? Shouldn't someone be held accountable for allowing them to be in practice? Do we have such unfair practices in our stock exchange, and if there are, are we going to keep quiet about it because we don't have a powerful watchdog like the Americans to bring justice and fair play to the small boys and continue to let the sheep stumble blindly to the slaughter house? I hope, really hope, that we are clean and no unfair practices were allowed into our system. I can only hope, but I have this nagging suspicion....

Are you 30 something?

All those 30 somethings out there, stand up and be counted. You could be the next PM of Singapore. The search is on for the next PM to succeed Hsien Loong. All eyes will now be starring at the next batch of PAP candidates for 2012. Those in young PAP or helping in the MPS would probably stand a good chance. Youth is capital. All those above 40s or above mid 30s, well, keep slogging, over the hill.

The Verdict: 93% say Singapore governed well

Reach has done a survey and the results are very comforting and encouraging. 80% are confident of the economic future, 87% say the country is corruption free, 92% happy with the quality of education and a smaller percentage still not comfortable with the cost of living. With so many happy people, let's ignore the unhappy voices, at least for now as we are celebrating the National Day. Maybe we should brush aside all these irritating voices or better, ask them to pack up and go. The survey was conducted on 1558 Singaporeans. The sample size is definitely much bigger than the bloggers in mysingaporenews. Here we have a very happy and contented Singaporeans against maybe 5 or 6 unhappy Singaporeans. If I were to conduct a poll here, I think the happiness index will be at most 20%. But that will be unfair. A sample size of 5 or 6 and from a generally biased group in cyberspace, you can expect what the result shall be. Reach has done a good job in having a sample size of 1558, good number for 4D, and from a neutral group. The result should be more representative of the perception of the population. Now this is something we can celebrate for this National Day.

Mum to be put off by ungracious people

A letter to Today paper by Tan Ai Chern described how she was put off by ungracious people, a child/mother who refused to offer her a seat in the MRT, commuters pretending to close their eyes, ignoring her, people jumping queue to buy fish soup in front of her. I hope mums to be will not be put off from having babies because of ungracious people. While we are encouraging people to have more babies, people should think very carefully why they are having babies. The last thing they should do is to have babies because they are told to do so. Or worst, because the economy needs a few more workers as cogs in the gigantic machinery. Or for the money minded, having babies because of the monetary incentives. Then there are those who have babies because someone from somewhere said so. A baby is a life. One must be responsible for bringing that life into this unforgiving world where losers will pay painfully for their whole lives. It is so easy for those who are naturally productive to keep producing. But producing babies to be prime ministers or to be manual workers? The most important and simple point is to give life only if you love the life and are able and willing to give the life a good life. Otherwise it is a very cruel and wicked thing to do to bring life into this world and let that life fend for itself as a deprived and underprivileged.