Vandalism or littering allowed?

Inserting flyers into people’s doors and gates is not vandalism and not littering. Ok, I accept that. Is it trespassing when they are not wanted? It is public nuisance when the owners would have to make the effort to throw them away? Is it a fire hazard when too many are left around and a lighted cigarette could set them ablaze? Is it a security risk to the owners when the flyers are a tell tale sign that the owners are not in for a long duration? Who should be responsible if someone slips on the fliers and get hurt? But it is so complicated and confusing an issue that our top talents in Parliament could not come out with a clear position. The fliers’ owners claimed that they have to do it to generate business. And some jokers even agree to it, saying that they cannot prevent people from doing business. What kind of bullshit is that? Why are the nasi lemak and kalipok boys and girls and small time hawkers not allowed to peddle their wares? Oh they got no licence, never pay protection money is it? Why should flat owners be troubled by the fliers and have to clear them away? What if the owners opened their doors and the fliers drop onto the floor, and left there? Is it littering on the part of the owners? The fliers are litters and will litter the whole corridor. When have littering been allowed? What happen to the $500 fine for littering? This looks like another serious and complex problem, like loan sharks and motor insurance scam, no one is able to solve. It’s not elementary, Watson. So the people should continue to be harassed and bombarded by fliers and they can do nothing about it. And Parliament too cannot do anything about it. It is just doing business. Did I see a big bull somewhere? Shall someone engage a prominent lawyer to clarify the legal position on this? There must be a position, black or white. Of shall it stay grey forever, impossible to solve?

I am back!

Practically every week there will be news on LKY making some calls on national affairs. After his revolutionary statement that there shall be no retirement age, the reports are the surest sign that he will be standing in the next GE. I believe he was the man who advised Deng Xiaoping to replace the old Chinese leadership with younger men and women in charge. China has done so and their leaders are mostly younger than ours now. We still have LKY, Jayakumar and Chok Tong in an age group that makes the Chinese leaders look boyish. So, why the dramatic change to keep the oldies going for as long as they are still kicking? Is it dearth of leadership, dearth of good political leaders? China is a big country with depth in talents. We don’t have the luxury. Look at the banks and you will understand why. The locals are just inept, not good enough, and you just cannot risk the banks with them. So there is a need to keep looking for foreign talents when the locals are just not good enough. For political leadership, things are a bit trickier. PRs cannot be political leaders for one. They need to change their ICs to pink. Only pink can do. For any newly minted citizens, preferably they should be pinkies for a few years to lend some credibility to be our political leaders. There is thus an urgent task to find and attract more foreign talents to boost up the quality of our political talent. In the meantime, the oldie trinity of LKY, Jayakumar and Chok Tong would still be needed to warm the seats and hold the fort. If this theory is true, then soon we could be seeing a Clinton, Brown, Gandhi or a Hu becoming our PM and leading us to a brighter future. Let’s welcome the foreigners with open arms. It is quite sad that with 2 million people we could carry ourselves to the first world. Now with 4/5 million people we are saying that our future will be doomed without more talented foreigners coming here to help us.

Is Superbug another health crisis?

The fear of H1N1 has just subsided after hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to stock up the vaccine by fearful nations, particularly those countries that have a lot of money to pay for the drug. The pharmaceutical companies must be very thankful for the monetary windfall for a crisis that was blown out of proportion and is now seen as not worst off than another variation of the common flu. The new hype, Superbug, is catching the attention of news hungry media. It is seen as another big thing by the European experts, and the monetary potential for big profits is very tempting. The Superbug is claimed to have its origin in India. The Indian health authority is not amused and angry that India is being picked as the culprit for the bug. And they too are questioning the vested and commercial interests of parties crying wolf. Could this be another cry wolf episode and a money spinner? Or would the world take this less seriously as the H1N1? Would WHO raise the alarm and pronounce this as another epidemic waiting to happen? Let’s hope that this is a false alarm. Let’s hope that countries were not made to waste precious money to hoard vaccines that may not be necessary. In this case there is no vaccine available for the next 10 years. But huge sums of money will have to be set aside for R&D to come up with a wonder drug. What if this is real? How are we going to be affected should we be found to harbour a big pool of carriers living in our neighbourhood? One thing for sure, our economy will shrink immediately if we are to repatriate in bulk, all the foreign workers from affected countries. There is a health risk and an economic risk. Our HDB flats will be vacant with no more tenants or foreign talents vying to buy resale flats. The property bubble will surely to burst, not because of a world financial crisis, but a Superbug. I recall the Year 2000 bug and how that also led to a crisis of worldwide proportion. This Superbug is an interesting development that could prove comical.

Notable quote by Lee Hsien Loong

"Let us welcome them with an open heart, help them to fit in and encourage those who will become citizens to strike roots here. If we do this well, by the next generation, their children will be native Singaporeans." Lee Hsien Loong The future of Singapore is looking very bright and exciting. We are going all out to woo the brightest talents from all over the world, including those who helped in one way or another to create the world's biggest financial collapse, to work with us. Yes, if we handle this well, Singapore's future will be rosy and good. And we have hundreds of billions in our reserves that would serve our future well too. And the large reserves will come in handy to the financial experts coming into our shores. Together with GIC and Temasek, if we manage these monies well, we may not have to work in the future. The money will work for us, with the help of all the financial talents. We are talking about our future getting better and better. Presumably we are doing very well now. And yes, many are doing excellently today except for the few oldies that needed $20 to help out in their transport fare and a few who have to live in the parks. Tell them not to worry, the future is looking really good, that is, if we handle the situation well. What if we did not do it well?

$20 for senior commuters

Gan Kim Yong is dishing out $20 from his CCC fund to senior citizens affected by the recent fare hikes in public transport. Only those who are 60 and above and have less than $1,500 monthly family income qualified. It is expected that this will cost the CCC $20,000. This is a one time payment though there is possibly of further payments. Is there a real problem affecting the senior citizens? After all it is only a few cents per trip. And this is not enough even to buy a can of soft drink. So why the hooha? Gan Kim Yong had received many complaints during his meet the people session. So there is a real problem. Other MPs are also getting more complaints on the same issue. If there is a problem, how is a one time $20 going to help remove the problem? Is this just a gesture of kindness or a temporary measure while the MPs are seeking a real solution to the plight of the poor oldies? Should those who made the decision to increase the small and irritating few cents of financial burden try to do something, like donating their bonuses to help them? After all their bonuses can come to several hundred thousands each and quite likely paid by these small increases? I don’t think anything will happen as the small hike is going to bring in many benefits to the oldies in the future. The hike is a good thing, helping the oldies. It becomes ridiculous to dish out more money for the oldies when they are supposedly benefitting from the hike. Or is it?