Honouring the gangsters

There is this big exhibition going on at the National Library about a William Farquhar who was the first Resident of a pre colonised island which is now Singapore. He took over control of the island as a stand in for Stamford Raffles who claimed to have founded this island for the British Empire. Uh no, for the East India Company. Yesterday a Teresa Lim wrote passionately about rediscovering and remembering this great Resident and even naming a few places in his honour. Now what is a resident and what was East India Company? We have more than a million permanent residents here today. There were several hundred residents here before the arrival of Raffles and the appointment of the first Resident. Funny usage of the word. I think first Resident meant that he was the top dog in the island then. And what was the East India Company? Was it a state company, an extended arm of the crown, or was it a privatised company of the state just to make profits for the state? How could a private company went around and claiming pieces of land as theirs? It seemed that the British separated the state from the running of profit making organisations then. The choice would allow the state to be free from the ugly dealings of the company. The company could schemed, connived, stole, robbed under whatever pretext, even grabbing lands and countries from the natives and their rulers, often at gun point. The state stood at a distance and was not tarnished by the unscrupulous doings, above the dirty deals. The state only came in like the Opium War in China to help the merchants on some fabricated excuses like protecting the interests of its gangsters, drug lords or subjects. The East Asia Company was nothing different from organised crime dressed up as legitimate businesses. They wielded tremendous powers and every warlord was literary a mafia boss. Raffles or Farquhar was no different. They were gangsters of the old days, protected and given legitimacy by the crown of England. Some of the knights of the British Empires were actually pirates, not much different from the Somalian pirates today. Whatever they did, it was for their own interests and the interests of the British crown and the British Empire. What happened after the years of occupation when we were given independence to run the island was a necessary convenience of the day. What and how we came about was not of design by these gangsters. We made it what it is today. Reading the history of yesterday and understanding how things were in the correct perspective would help to increase our knowledge of past events. Maybe there were no victims and no sufferings under the control of the gangsters, maybe it was ignorance, we seem to have a romantic view of our colonial history and their exploits, and remember them fondly. I think they make a good collection as the myths of Singapore.

What is realistic pay?

Our model of high pay for ministers was given an airing in an American TV channel, the Chicago Tonight, hosted by Phil Ponce and guest Lee Hsien Loong. The merits of our case against the demerits of the American case were discussed and defended. One example quoted was the American judges presiding in their courts and listening to young lawyers who were paid many times more than the honourable and distinguished gentlemen sitting at the top bench. Kind of funny really. How could the judges sit there listening to young boys telling them about the case and knowing that these young boys are being paid so much more than them, and could buy them dinner on every outing? What would be going on in the minds of the judges other than the cases being read? The conventional wisdom here will say that the judges were grossly underpaid and needed to be realistically rewarded for the responsibility they were holding. Or are the young lawyers being grossly overpaid while the judges are being paid reasonably? Which is which will depend on who and how people look at the issue. Look at the numbers again. A CEO being paid $10m pa versus workers being paid $20k pa is equivalent to one man doing 500 men's job. That is how productive or valuable the CEO is to the organisation. He carries the weight of 500 men's wage bill. Does he really do the job of 500 men? Oh, big responsibility. His decision, just saying yes or no, could mean millions and billions being made or lost, and hundreds of thousands of people's lives being affected. This is what they are being paid for. Responsibility. Could the little worker's responsibility be in that scale? A terrorist, with little skill or professional qualification and training, could unleash a vial of deadly chemical or biological material that could do untold damages to untold number of people. The impact of his action surely must be greater than a $10m CEO and should rightly command such a pay. And the little soldier or custom officer manning the checking counter must be shouldering the same kind of responsibility and deserve more than what he is being paid currently. So is the security guard to a high value vault or premise. It reminds me of one very highly paid security guard. The cook in a top notch restaurant where all the big shots eat better be paid more than the big shots as their lives depended on him not poisoning them. His responsibility is enormous. So are bodyguards to Presidents and Prime Ministers. So are all the arseholes. So what is realistic pay? According to what and who?

Is it so difficult?

Is it so difficult to forecast the number of doctors needed here? Hospitals are not built overnight. I think it takes much longer time to built hospitals than HDb flats. Why is there a sudden shortage of doctors when the numbers can easily be calculated with a pocket calculator? We don't produce enough doctors from our universities, not enough capacities. And many of our brightest have to get their medical education overseas. The sad part is that these students who went overseas were not part of the planning process to meet the demands of our hospitals. They went completely on their own motivation and may not even want to return if they can find jobs elsewhere. In the meantime we went on a recruitment blitz, grabbing anything that comes by while many of our best were scattering away from our shores. Is this another jamban case?

A different role for internet or new media

Obviously a new role has been developing for the internet media vis a vis the old media. The forte of old media is news reporting. They report news. Once reported it is no longer news and not worth reporting a second time. In the case of internet news, it is not merely reporting news per se. It is an expression of the people, begging for action, demanding for action over issues or cases of injustice or a cause etc etc. No doubt the plea may completely be ignored and nothing could come out of it. But ignoring a case or issue raised will reflect badly on the parties where action is needed. There is no escape. Not doing anything when an issue becomes the talk of the town can be embarrassing or even seen as being irresponsible, callous or aloofness or arrogance could also seep through on those responsible. Whatever, there is a price for being seen in a negative light. An example of old media and internet reporting is that of a fire. The old media will report the fire when it first came to notice. Whatever happens after the first news break is often not reported. No follow up unless the fire keeps burning for a few more days. In the case of internet, the fire will be reported. And if the fire fighters did not turn up in time, it will be reported. If the fire fighters did a bad job, it will be reported. If a good job, it may also be reported. And the fire can be reported everyday if there are other consequences resulting from the fire. An exception is the rogue diplomat case where the old media keeps pushing and covering the case. The old media is pursuing and hounding this case for justice that has never been seen before. The repeated reporting of the case should at least shame the Romanian govt for appointing a rogue as its representative to the diplomatic world, and now more disgusting is trying to protect him in all ways possible. It is not willing to face the court of common justice that a serious crime has been committed by a poor specimen of its govt and that it should do all it can to bring the animal to justice, that any honourable govt will do. In this case, it is good that the old media uses all its resources to keep reporting on the case to bring the criminal to justice, and the Romanian govt to its knee if it has to. It will be great if the old media could pursue issues in this way, tenaciously, without letting go. Maybe they should continue to report more on the high property prices and how badly it is affecting the citizens and emptying their pockets. For everyone who makes a handsome profit, some poor citizen is going to pay for it for a life time. Is it a good thing? The internet or new media has a job cut out for it, to pursue issues tenaciously, without letting go.

Myth 220 - The Myth of under consumption

Rich people will want to stay in C Class hospital wards. So it is necessary to have mean testing as C Class wards are highly subsidised. Rich people will want to buy 3rm or 4rm flats so there must be an income ceiling to bar them from buying HDB flats or else they will deprived the lower income from buying smaller HDB flats. I shall go on to say that rich people will want to drive China or Korean made cars and not Mercedes, BMWs or the more exotic brands. Oh, this is not true as these products are not subsidised. Is it true that rich people will want to under consume? Is under consumption good? Let me address the first question first. For every rich patient who wants to be admitted into C wards, there will be 10 less rich patients who want to be warded in A wards. And for every rich man who wants to buy a 4 rm or 3 rm HDB flat, there will be hundreds or thousands of less rich men who want to buy bigger flats or private properties. So what is the problem? The problem is the supply. If the people want to be admitted into C wards, why don't they build more C wards? If there are more people who want to buy smaller flats even if they earn more than $8,000, why don't they build more smaller flats and let them buy? Unfortunately restaurants are not subsidised. Otherwise they will have to conduct mean testing to make sure that the rich customers order only sharks fin and abalone and nothing else. And the second question, what's wrong with under consumption? Is it not prudent for people to spend lesser and save more? And this is very important to young people who have not much savings to start with, and that they should not be forced to buy properties that will eat up their incomes. It is crazy and irresponsible to demand that young people must buy expensive properties. And then later complain that people did not have enough savings for their retirements. This is real cock. Only fuckheads think that way. Be prudent, spend within your means, but dictated that if one has some money, they must spend it. Then complain that they don't have enough for retirement, then start to grab more money from their CPFs under all kinds of schemes for retirement. Are the fuckheads making sense or talking nonsense? To me it is full of contradictions, full of holes in the reasonings.