Are the grievances real?

There seems to be a lot of criticisms against the govt policies, and people felt that they are disadvantaged. How true are these? Are they just noises from a small unhappy minorities or are they genuine? Read the main media everything seems so rosy and good. Everyone seems to be very happy making their millions, buying expensive cars, going for holidays, and still jamming up at property launches. I think the PAP has nothing to fear. Grousing and kpkb by small groups of unhappy people will not be enough to swing the votes against them. They will still ride to power with comfortable majority.

New immigrants for Civil Defence

40 years ago, when I walked the streets of London, I could pick up a newspaper and threw 2 shillings into a box and walked away. No one was there to guard the money. Today, I don't think we can leave newspapers on our streets and expect people to drop money into it and the money still remains there for the rightful owner at the end of the day. We are affluent and may not think too much of a couple of dollars. Would any newspaper vendor dare to do this? Would anyone dare to ask foreign workers to look after their homes when they are away on holiday? There could be some exceptions and pre conditions. I would not. I would not even invite them to my home to familiarise themselves with what is inside my home, with extremely rare exceptions of course. If we can farm the guarding of our homes and country to foreigners, we don't need citizen soldiers. I cannot imagine if security guard agencies are still hiring ex convicts or people with criminal records to be guards.

The best speaker in Parliament

Guess who? It hit me straight away when I tuned in to the 9.30pm news on Channel 5. Lim Swee Sway was propounding his Theory of Productivity in Parliament and the audience was dumbfounded. The camera panned across the House and the MPs and NMPs were wide eyed, mouth opened, and written on their faces was the sign of shock disbelief. They listened to him intensely and probably thinking to themselves how come they did not know of such a great Theory. Ok, I shall not put words into the Minister mouth. He did not call it the Theory of Productivity. I will rate this 'Theory of Productivity' in the same category as the Theory of Relativity in its profound and impactful implications. Let me put it briefly, 1% increase in productivity of 3m workers equals 30,000 workers (I can understand this part) and this can be translated into something like 50% of something, or call it output. He went on so fast, with so many numbers that I could not grasp what they were. I scoured the papers this morning to confirm the numbers Swee Say quoted, but those buggers did not think it newsworthy to be printed. Nothing was reported. I can't believe it My lesser brain could not understand the implications of 2% or 3% productivity growth. Now I understand. If 1% productivity growth can lead to 50% of whatever growth or output, 2% will give 100% of whatever! This is simply phenomenal. Forgive me for not knowing what this 50% is all about. But I will try to trace this amazing speech and theory and correct this post when I find it. Whatever, Swee Say was able to captivate the attention of all the Parliamentarians when no one could. PS. I appeal to the Straits Times to print Swee Say's speech in full.

Selling snake oil to gullible Asians

British insurer Prudential is tapping sovereign wealth funds in China and Singapore to help finance its 35.5 billion dollar buyout of US insurance giant AIG's Asian arm, a report said Tuesday. It said the Singaporean and Chinese sovereign wealth funds had not made a final decision but their response was positive...From Sydney Morning Herald I hope we have learnt our lesson and stop buying more snake oil products when nobody dares to touch. All the oranges bought so far are lehmons. If we ever commit to another lehmon and lose another few billions, it is like begging to be screwed.

Myth 216 - The Rajaratnam Myth

In a main article in the Editorial section of the ST today, Kishore Mahbubani wrote an article in praise of S Rajaratnam, one of the key founding fathers of modern Singapore. He lamented at the lack of interest and knowledge of this pioneering leader of our country, or city. In honour of Rajaratnam's great contributions to the city or country, Kishore suggested that we should create more myths around this man for posterity and our history. I will not disagree with him for wanting to honour our great leaders of the past and to remember them fondly for the good things they did. But why myth, a word that he agrees, connotes very negative feelings and meaning. The Myths of Rajaratnam! Down the road we may even create the Myths of Goh Keng Swee and the Myths of Lee Kuan Yew. I want to protest and disagree with him on the word myth. Kishore is a great artist in the use of words. But I would rather Kishore choose the word legend instead. Legends may also not be true and can be created, dressed up, but the feelings are more praiseworthy and positive. The Legends of Davy Crockett, the Legends of Huang Fei Hong, the Legends of Rajaratnam, the Legends of Goh Keng Swee, the Legends of Lee Kuan Yew! Sound better right? The Myths of Rajaratnam! Sounds awful to me.