Our Malays are integrating very well

Several articles appeared in the ST yesterday on comments that were translated from Berita Harian and Berita Minggu, our Malay papers. They were the views of our Malay elite responding to what LKY said on Malays integrating into the main stream of our social activities. The views were guarded but mainly told of how well our Malays have adapted and accommodated to the modern life style of this city state and tolerating the differences in cultural and religious activities. On the first page of mypaper there was an article about the authorities in some Malaysian states ramming up checks on immoral behaviours between the sexes during Valentine’s Day. The Islamic apparatus will be increasing checks and patrols on Muslims in dark corners engaging in ‘immoral acts’ of close proximity. I must add that such vigilance is only confined to Muslim authorities wanting to ensure that the Muslims are not indulging in sinful lifestyles. I have read an article in the net that when Najib was invited to attend a Christmas function by the Catholic Archbishop of KL, there was a polite request that the Christian cross be removed, no carols and no prayers during his visit. That is the level of tolerance in Malaysia. This is from an article by John Malott, former US Ambassador to Malaysia. I stand to be corrected, there were postings in the net that there were calls to prohibit the sales of ‘bak kut teh’, ‘char kway teow’, ‘wan tan mee’ etc etc unless they are halal and carry the halal signs. Thank god, our Muslim brothers are more tolerant than the Malaysian Muslims and did not insist on such regulations. In the ST articles, many emphasized that the Singapore Muslims have no problems eating together with non Muslims and are mixing freely while keeping the limits of their own constraints. An article by A Rahman Basrun commented that Islam is not the problem but the Muslims were. I quote, ‘Finally, it is not Islam that is troublesome; rather, Muslims are the ones who cause trouble to Islam.’ By comparing the two states, Malaysia and Singapore, both have Muslims practicing Islam, we can see what is the real problem. I agree with Rahman Basrun, that Islam is not the problem, but the Muslims and the way they practiced their faith is. If that is the case, LKY’s comment is fair in the sense that Islam allows room for tolerance and the Muslims could, in some ways, moderate the practices, without compromising on the key doctrines, to adapt to other cultural and religious activities. If Islam is the source of intolerance, then there is no room for any moderations.

MAD-ness in the financial world

The concept of MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, used to be only applicable to superpower conflicts where both parties will destroy each other with their WMD. The end of the world consequence of this concept is enough to bring fear and prevent any crazy hot heads from attempting war with nuclear weapons. This term is gaining relevance in the financial industry with all the devious and greedy men in charge. They all think very big, with big machines in the forms of high speed computers and networks to link all the markets together. What this means, simply, is that all the big guns can be trained at one market and blasts it to the end of the Universe. Impossible, they said. There will be no collusion of that sort, market forces and regulations will not allow it to happen. Really? When there is GREED! The financial world is so corrupt that with all the devious men in charge, all the classical rules to ensure fair play have been shoved aside and buried. Fair play, level playing field, transparency, cornering the market, buy and sell without change of ownership, false trading, churnings, syndicates manipulation, etc etc are now part of the game. We are seeing the breaking down of all good regulations, even deregulations, concocting systems for the big funds to take the fullest advantage of technology and their financial muscles to wipe out the markets. Theoretically it sounds fantastic and super efficient when the whole world and all the fund managers can trade in every market at the same time. It is an ideal market, with many players to allow the free market forces to run at its most efficient manner. In reality, a financial holocaust is waiting to happen when the power of destruction is in the hands of a few irresponsible and greedy men with no morals or responsibility except to make profits at any cost. God is great. It allows ingenious men to scheme together to meet at Armaggeddon happily, and thinking that they are very clever, to create the mother of all systems for self destruction. Globalisation, interconnectivity, de regulation, mergers, etc, etc, all points to one end. The rogues never think that they are the rogues. And they are in charge. We have experienced the frightening story of too big to fail. The next big story is too big for the good of everyone. The big funds, when acting in unison, can be more destructive than WMD. The world was given a glimpse of what is yet to come during the financial crisis. If the rascals in the financial industry are allowed to do what they wanted, we will get there sooner. They are linking all the markets together, to be burnt together at one go. Does it ring a bell? It is happening in Hongkong today!

More wanting to set up money lending business

I thought why the sudden interest in money lending and why Singaporeans are suddenly so enthused to want to set up businesses. Then I read in the net that there is this great idea being floated to help the poor Singaporeans to help themselves. It is about the poor oldies who have no money and needed to borrow money to survive. I was told that the scheme is to lend money to these oldies, who must first be over 65 years and be mean tested to be genuinely poor. Then they will be allowed to borrow from their own savings in their CPF accounts, and to pay interest of course. But one more interesting conditon. In order to be finally qualified to borrow from their own savings, they must first contribute 1% of their income, I supposed, to their savings first. Then only they can be allowed to borrow from themselves, or something like that. I also got confused as the logic was simply too brilliant that I am blinded. And why the long queue to set up money lending business? I think all those in the queue must be thinking that if the borrower has to put in money first, then they might as well be around to take the money upfront and talk later. And if the borrower got money to put into their savings accounts, they shouldn't be too risky. Am I right in thinking like that? Did I miss out something? This must be another one of those Uniquely Singapore schemes.

Ask and it shall be given

Every now and then, on Saturdays, armies of school children will be despatched into the streets, with a tin can in hand, to beg for money. Just ask, and the money will come in. People are expected to give, not to reward effort, but to beggars. The concept of begging to get easy money has been so successful that many big charities find it so convenient to beg for more money by organising them in a big way, with celebrities and public figures doing the begging. It is an annual affair and being conducted several times a year. And it is so popular and so attractive that foreign celebrities too find them very interesting and fun, begging for a good cause. We have a few infamous personalities that got so carried away with big time begging that they ended up behind bars. Money easy come easy go. When money can be had so easily, where is there a need to work? A young man even went to an extent of setting up several charities to beg for money, for his own pockets. And several others too did it in style. The latest I heard over the news is that grandmas are also roped in to the begging act. Great fun man, and so much enthusiasm shown by the grannies to beg on the streets. Soon more grannies will be attracted to this new found past time. Did I remember someone saying there is no such thing as free lunch? Nothing is for free. You want something, you got to work for it. With begging becoming a national past time, is there a contradiction? This culture of begging when one is young, begging when one is an adult, and begging when one is old, is sinking roots as a national culture here. Possibly we are the biggest nation of beggars.

Baby Shield?

We have MediShield and now BabyShield akan datang. Of course we have many kinds of shields for the oldies as well but in different names.. Soon there will be the ‘bao ka liao’ shield to cover from birth to death. Child birth is a risky business and statistically quite a significant percentage will be born with congenital problems or other birth defects. And the bottom line, it means a medical bill to foot. How come parents are not told that giving birth to babies is not simply footing the gynaecologist and delivery bills? There is another big chunk to be paid for birth defects and other related illnesses that is not cheap. So there is a need for BabyShield. Ah so. Can this be one of the prime reason why there is this urgent call to make more babies, to contribute to the economy by paying more medical bills plus insurance? Making a baby is a economic big factor that will add to the economic growth data. Just look at the cost the parents will have to bear, from conception to delivery, pre natal and post natal medical support and all the related medicine and medicare services. And that is only the beginning. The cost of bringing up the child, food, clothing, medical care as an infant, then nursery, kindergarten, pre school, and all the schooling till employment, and all the expenses for growing up. Finally as a young adult, 2 years for the country, follows by all the education needed to become employable. How much must the parents pay? Making babies is all about economics and the economy. A child could add at least half a million dollars to the economy before he makes his first dollar. Multiply this figure by the 30,000 to 40,000 births annually, the amount contributed to the economy is immense. The parents will have to foot the whole bill, plus all the shields. Should the govt share some of the cost of making babies, raising babies and educating them? The BabyShield can be a good start, plus all the medical bills for the delivery of a baby. This leads to another fundamental issue, the health of the people. If the headcount is so important, and if the people cannot afford to pay when they are sick, or dying, their loss is the loss of the country and the economy. Every headcount less will be a dent to the economic numbers. But the people are expected to pay for all the shields to keep themselves healthy and fit to help grow the economy. The country needs your babies. But you carry the can and pay to support all the services provided to bring up the babies. In other words, it is your problem if you bring out a baby to this world.