According to media reports, the woman boarded a SMRT train at Raffles Place on her way home and sat on an empty seat which appeared to be wet.
Thinking that the transparent fluid is water, the woman sat on it only to discover a stinging sensation to her buttocks. The pain got worse and worse and she eventually alighted at Dhoby Ghaut MRT station to check...
To her shock, she discovered her buttocks was ‘burnt’. On admission to the hospital, she was told she required skin grafting due to the extensive damage. The transparent fluid is likely to be highly concentrated sulfuric acid.
http://temasektimes.wordpress.com/20...skin-grafting/
Is the above just an accident or something more ominous? The authority needs to get to the bottom of this. Someone must have seen who left the acid on the train seat. Pray that it was just a minor accident. If not, things could get nasty.
3/28/2012
Malaysia - A refreshing and innovative initiative
Malaysia boleh! The latest news or rumour that Malaysia is going to charge tolls on the new eastern highway from the immigration only on Singaporean cars is the most brilliant thing that I have heard on governance. The tax burden of the country should be borne by the foreigners benefiting from the country. This is a notable principle for all govts to consider, especially Singapore.
And this kind of taxation policy can only be applicable and effective when the foreigners form a large percentage of the population, or users of the highway in the Malaysian case. Why not, these foreigners are here because they know what is best for them and should repay the generosity of the host country. Singaporeans driving into Malaysia must pay generously to the host country for their enjoyment there. You cannot fault such a thinking and cannot even try to fight it. Why have to pay to go into Disneyland? It is their country, silly you. You visit someone’s country, you play by their rules. Only silly countries will bend down on their knees to welcome foreigners and treat foreigners better than their citizens.
In Singapore, we have almost 50% foreigners in the country and rightfully they should share a bigger tax burden for the opportunity to be here, to get rich and to enjoy all our hospitality, and to litter everywhere. Why are we paying for them to be here using our tax money instead?
And this is paradise that the whole world is queuing up to come in. Those who refuse to pay need not come. Many are waiting in line to come in, to smuggle themselves in, to pay to come in. Or this is a myth, no one wants to come?
Malaysia is doing the right thing. Country and citizens first. Imagine what it would be like if the tax burden of the citizens is transferred to foreigners, PRs and temporary workers? Simply brilliant! Chee Hean should have mentioned this to his govt officials yesterday and make them think of better ways to tax the foreigners as a substitute to taxing the citizens.
And this kind of taxation policy can only be applicable and effective when the foreigners form a large percentage of the population, or users of the highway in the Malaysian case. Why not, these foreigners are here because they know what is best for them and should repay the generosity of the host country. Singaporeans driving into Malaysia must pay generously to the host country for their enjoyment there. You cannot fault such a thinking and cannot even try to fight it. Why have to pay to go into Disneyland? It is their country, silly you. You visit someone’s country, you play by their rules. Only silly countries will bend down on their knees to welcome foreigners and treat foreigners better than their citizens.
In Singapore, we have almost 50% foreigners in the country and rightfully they should share a bigger tax burden for the opportunity to be here, to get rich and to enjoy all our hospitality, and to litter everywhere. Why are we paying for them to be here using our tax money instead?
And this is paradise that the whole world is queuing up to come in. Those who refuse to pay need not come. Many are waiting in line to come in, to smuggle themselves in, to pay to come in. Or this is a myth, no one wants to come?
Malaysia is doing the right thing. Country and citizens first. Imagine what it would be like if the tax burden of the citizens is transferred to foreigners, PRs and temporary workers? Simply brilliant! Chee Hean should have mentioned this to his govt officials yesterday and make them think of better ways to tax the foreigners as a substitute to taxing the citizens.
Teo Chee Hean - The paradox of governance
Chee Hean made a keynote speech to the elite civil servants, or shall I called them govt officials, on the role of govt last night. His key point was the role of government, and the paradox is that some people want more govt some want less. This is nothing new and is really not an issue. He also mentioned about doing the right things and doing them right.
What ever paradoxes there are, the worst paradox is a govt doing what it should not be doing and not doing what it should be doing. Put it in another way, things that the people did not want to govt to be doing but the govt insists on doing and things that the people want the govt to do but not doing. This is the paradox that the govt cannot see. It only believes in the proverbial ‘I’. It is always the ‘I decide, I say, I do’. The govt is the authority to do what it likes and to draw the OB markers.
The govt has never thought that the people also have their likes and their rights and also their OB markers. I recommend that all civil servants, not govt officials, should read JS Mills and try to understand what he meant by the rights of individuals. This may help them to understand that they must not cross into the rights of individuals though the govt has all the power to do so, to violate individual rights in the name of the common good. Think how many individual rights have the govt violated and think how not to do so.
Chee Hean also talked about the govt as a regulator, enabler and provider. As regulator, ‘the govt acts to safeguard the interests of the people, to find the right balance in its intervention’. Think housing policy, think influx of foreigners and population growth. Has the govt failed badly in these areas as a regulator?
Similarly, as an enabler, the govt is to ‘create a conducive environment so that “desirable activities can flourish”.’ This, the govt has succeeded in some areas and not in some other areas, depending on the beneficiaries and the losers.
As a provider, the ‘govt shall provide where there are societal needs non government players are not able to meet, such as national security.’ He agreed that there were debates or unhappiness in areas like education, public transport, housing and healthcare which should be provided by the govt but privatized. So the govt need not be the provider that it should be. And is the govt providing for the aged? Currently to some extent, but eventually may be zero as the aged are compelled through all the compulsory schemes in CPF and Medisave to provide for themselves. This would make the govt’s job easier or even redundant except to be the regulator to ensure the aged provide for themselves.
Very paradoxical indeed. Doing the right things and doing them right are as controversial as affordability. What is right and what is wrong can be very subjective and personal.
What ever paradoxes there are, the worst paradox is a govt doing what it should not be doing and not doing what it should be doing. Put it in another way, things that the people did not want to govt to be doing but the govt insists on doing and things that the people want the govt to do but not doing. This is the paradox that the govt cannot see. It only believes in the proverbial ‘I’. It is always the ‘I decide, I say, I do’. The govt is the authority to do what it likes and to draw the OB markers.
The govt has never thought that the people also have their likes and their rights and also their OB markers. I recommend that all civil servants, not govt officials, should read JS Mills and try to understand what he meant by the rights of individuals. This may help them to understand that they must not cross into the rights of individuals though the govt has all the power to do so, to violate individual rights in the name of the common good. Think how many individual rights have the govt violated and think how not to do so.
Chee Hean also talked about the govt as a regulator, enabler and provider. As regulator, ‘the govt acts to safeguard the interests of the people, to find the right balance in its intervention’. Think housing policy, think influx of foreigners and population growth. Has the govt failed badly in these areas as a regulator?
Similarly, as an enabler, the govt is to ‘create a conducive environment so that “desirable activities can flourish”.’ This, the govt has succeeded in some areas and not in some other areas, depending on the beneficiaries and the losers.
As a provider, the ‘govt shall provide where there are societal needs non government players are not able to meet, such as national security.’ He agreed that there were debates or unhappiness in areas like education, public transport, housing and healthcare which should be provided by the govt but privatized. So the govt need not be the provider that it should be. And is the govt providing for the aged? Currently to some extent, but eventually may be zero as the aged are compelled through all the compulsory schemes in CPF and Medisave to provide for themselves. This would make the govt’s job easier or even redundant except to be the regulator to ensure the aged provide for themselves.
Very paradoxical indeed. Doing the right things and doing them right are as controversial as affordability. What is right and what is wrong can be very subjective and personal.
3/27/2012
Shimun Lai's facebook comment
Shimun Lai, a 19-year-old at Nanyang Polytechnic, posted a racially insensitive comment about smell and race that has gone viral. This kind of insensitive remarks will be repeated by the less sensitive and will irk those being targeted. People get offended by all kinds of things, some genuine, some imagery, some real, some unreal, some unjustified.
One aspect of Shimun Lai’s complaint is genuine and can be minimized, that is bad body odour, or unclean body. This problem is not race biased but affects all races, local and foreigners. All human beans have body odour and it smells badly if not wash properly. Then there are some with bad personal hygiene and do not take bath regularly. Some tend to sweat profusely and smell foul. Some have bad personal habits that produce very unpleasant bad odour.
And in the close proximity of trains and buses, even inside working areas or offices, really bad smell is a problem. And the person with the smell may not know it when people start to avoid them and stay away from them. The polite ones affected by the smell will endure quietly or walk away. The less intolerant will show their displeasure and may even tell the person off.
This little irritating problem calls for a public campaign to educate everyone to adopt simple personal hygiene routines to keep themselves clean and be less offensive to those around them. It may be a bit too much to ask for from manual workers as their work demands will make them dirty and smelly very quickly. And you have the foreigners with their own standard of personal hygiene and habits which they are used to without knowing that they smell and irritate and even offend those around them. We don’t have to live with their dirty smell.
For friendly co existence and acceptance, the offenders should be educated or briefed to keep themselves clean. It is not too demanding a request or expectation. It is actually very rude to walk around smelling and forcing it on others. In the train and buses, it can be unbearable. It is rude and offensive. The ministry should do its part to reduce this social stigma. What is the point of nice clean buses, beautiful restaurants and theatres, when the person next door did not bother to clean himself or herself. And I say this again, it is not a racial thing but affects everyone. Anyone who does not keep himself or herself clean will smell and will be unwelcomed.
Let’s do something to prevent this social problem from becoming an irritating issue. Everyone can spread the word around to their friends, and friends to their friends politely. It does not cost much to wash and bath and be clean. This is a first world country and first world habits, culture and social graces must be the norm. We should not go backward to accept and accommodate third world social habits by lowering down our standard of simple hygiene. We have allowed spitting and littering to return to our midst. It is a sorry state of affair.
Why do you think politicians irked when shaking hands with people? It is not fair to blame the politicians. Why should a pair of clean hands be dirtied by a pair of soiled hands? The politician is not impolite to want to wash the soil hands quickly. It is the other party that is rude and offensive.
One aspect of Shimun Lai’s complaint is genuine and can be minimized, that is bad body odour, or unclean body. This problem is not race biased but affects all races, local and foreigners. All human beans have body odour and it smells badly if not wash properly. Then there are some with bad personal hygiene and do not take bath regularly. Some tend to sweat profusely and smell foul. Some have bad personal habits that produce very unpleasant bad odour.
And in the close proximity of trains and buses, even inside working areas or offices, really bad smell is a problem. And the person with the smell may not know it when people start to avoid them and stay away from them. The polite ones affected by the smell will endure quietly or walk away. The less intolerant will show their displeasure and may even tell the person off.
This little irritating problem calls for a public campaign to educate everyone to adopt simple personal hygiene routines to keep themselves clean and be less offensive to those around them. It may be a bit too much to ask for from manual workers as their work demands will make them dirty and smelly very quickly. And you have the foreigners with their own standard of personal hygiene and habits which they are used to without knowing that they smell and irritate and even offend those around them. We don’t have to live with their dirty smell.
For friendly co existence and acceptance, the offenders should be educated or briefed to keep themselves clean. It is not too demanding a request or expectation. It is actually very rude to walk around smelling and forcing it on others. In the train and buses, it can be unbearable. It is rude and offensive. The ministry should do its part to reduce this social stigma. What is the point of nice clean buses, beautiful restaurants and theatres, when the person next door did not bother to clean himself or herself. And I say this again, it is not a racial thing but affects everyone. Anyone who does not keep himself or herself clean will smell and will be unwelcomed.
Let’s do something to prevent this social problem from becoming an irritating issue. Everyone can spread the word around to their friends, and friends to their friends politely. It does not cost much to wash and bath and be clean. This is a first world country and first world habits, culture and social graces must be the norm. We should not go backward to accept and accommodate third world social habits by lowering down our standard of simple hygiene. We have allowed spitting and littering to return to our midst. It is a sorry state of affair.
Why do you think politicians irked when shaking hands with people? It is not fair to blame the politicians. Why should a pair of clean hands be dirtied by a pair of soiled hands? The politician is not impolite to want to wash the soil hands quickly. It is the other party that is rude and offensive.
Spirit and intent equal nobility
24.(2A) In respect of any group representation constituency, no writ shall be issued under subsection (1) for an election to fill any vacancy unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament.
Uncle Yap posted in his blog on the legal provisions in our Constitution about holding of by election. The specific article of interest is posted above. I can understand why he is so furious with the provision. I too do not feel comfortable with it. And I believe every layman would be staring at it very hard, and very skeptical as to why the law is such. The immediate reaction is negative for sure. And no one can blame the lay people for their thoughts and reactions.
How can? What if kena langgar and 5 out of 6 or 4 out of 5 mati how? Superficially it would seem that a single MP would not be able to do justice to represent a whole GRC which by law is provided with 5 or 6 MPs to do the job. But the law is not something that is suka suka written by the unthinking lay people. The law is drafted carefully by very learned people and passed by very talented people in Parliament with good intention and the spirit of serving the people and country. It is meant to be good. The basic nature of the law is good. The law and the reason behind the law must be noble and with good intention. So how can this be seen so negatively?
I sat down and went into quiet contemplation and after several hours I was enlightened by the wisdom and beauty of the law. Now I understand why the lay people are called lay people, because they don’t have the wisdom and intellect to see beyond the tip of their nose. This law is very cleverly crafted to serve the interest of the people and not the leaders as some may think so. All the apprehension of flaws in this law is unfounded. If not, the talented and noble law makers would not have passed it.
Let me explain. The thinking behind this law is very far sighted and practical and has taken into consideration all the reservations and contingencies like 5 die and only one left to run the show. The first practical consideration is that you don’t suka suka hold by elections because someone got sack for a little indiscretion or someone wants to replace another one. Holding a by election is a very serious matter and involves a lot of people, logistics and money. So, unless very necessary like all the MP dies, one left standing should be good enough. Further, he can call on the support of other grassroot leaders to help out. So the people would not be deprived of being served by MPs. And not to forget, the MPs of today are so talented and full of energy that running around a GRC to serve the people on an OMO basis is a piece of cake. They don’t mind the sacrifice. And they are damn good at multi tasking.
But the truth is that it is unlikely that 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 6 MPs can kena langgar all at one time. The probability is so low that there is no need to worry about it. The reason and wisdom of the law maker cannot be doubted on this. For it to happen is more difficult than striking toto, or maybe once in 50 years. No, make it once in 500 years.
The people need not be unduly concerned about the law. It is very well thought out and the spirit and intent are definitely good and noble. You can have faith and confidence in the law makers for doing the right thing. If you don’t agree with my interpretation, please find a quiet corner to do some deep contemplation and you will see light at the end of the tunnel, and believe me. The law is as good as it can be.
Uncle Yap posted in his blog on the legal provisions in our Constitution about holding of by election. The specific article of interest is posted above. I can understand why he is so furious with the provision. I too do not feel comfortable with it. And I believe every layman would be staring at it very hard, and very skeptical as to why the law is such. The immediate reaction is negative for sure. And no one can blame the lay people for their thoughts and reactions.
How can? What if kena langgar and 5 out of 6 or 4 out of 5 mati how? Superficially it would seem that a single MP would not be able to do justice to represent a whole GRC which by law is provided with 5 or 6 MPs to do the job. But the law is not something that is suka suka written by the unthinking lay people. The law is drafted carefully by very learned people and passed by very talented people in Parliament with good intention and the spirit of serving the people and country. It is meant to be good. The basic nature of the law is good. The law and the reason behind the law must be noble and with good intention. So how can this be seen so negatively?
I sat down and went into quiet contemplation and after several hours I was enlightened by the wisdom and beauty of the law. Now I understand why the lay people are called lay people, because they don’t have the wisdom and intellect to see beyond the tip of their nose. This law is very cleverly crafted to serve the interest of the people and not the leaders as some may think so. All the apprehension of flaws in this law is unfounded. If not, the talented and noble law makers would not have passed it.
Let me explain. The thinking behind this law is very far sighted and practical and has taken into consideration all the reservations and contingencies like 5 die and only one left to run the show. The first practical consideration is that you don’t suka suka hold by elections because someone got sack for a little indiscretion or someone wants to replace another one. Holding a by election is a very serious matter and involves a lot of people, logistics and money. So, unless very necessary like all the MP dies, one left standing should be good enough. Further, he can call on the support of other grassroot leaders to help out. So the people would not be deprived of being served by MPs. And not to forget, the MPs of today are so talented and full of energy that running around a GRC to serve the people on an OMO basis is a piece of cake. They don’t mind the sacrifice. And they are damn good at multi tasking.
But the truth is that it is unlikely that 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 6 MPs can kena langgar all at one time. The probability is so low that there is no need to worry about it. The reason and wisdom of the law maker cannot be doubted on this. For it to happen is more difficult than striking toto, or maybe once in 50 years. No, make it once in 500 years.
The people need not be unduly concerned about the law. It is very well thought out and the spirit and intent are definitely good and noble. You can have faith and confidence in the law makers for doing the right thing. If you don’t agree with my interpretation, please find a quiet corner to do some deep contemplation and you will see light at the end of the tunnel, and believe me. The law is as good as it can be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)