Small states are vulnerable and have natural enemies more than big states. Every neighbouring state is a natural enemy of small states, and bigger neighbours make bigger threats. The geographic fate of states is like a congenital disease, like not having the choice of parents. That is the lot of states, and having to live with the neighbours is geographical no choice.
Other than the natural neighbours that can be friends or enemies, states may choose to have more friends or have more enemies. Sometimes such choices can be as congenital as in geography, in a way. Choosing friends in the international arena is as good as choosing enemies. Some states are forced into choosing friends, some willingly choose their friends and end up having a set of enemies delivered in a neat package.
Singapore has chosen to be a friend of the US, an ally. The choice comes along with a package of enemies, all the enemies of the USA. We acquired their enemies. The best that states like Singapore can do is to maneuver itself to be as friendly as possible with the USA’s enemies and not to paint itself into a corner. Singapore has avoided being a natural enemy of China or Russia through its association with the US. Singapore is also quite successful in some peripheral areas by walking the tight rope or round the fence to shake hands with Myanmar, North Korea and some other enemies of the Americans.
Not every situation is Singapore that lucky. When we join the big gang, we become part of the gang. And big gangster at times will want to dictate terms with the little gang members. And when big gangsters commanded that if you are not with me, than you are enemy, and demanded a stand, small states would have little choice but to join the fray, make enemies and become enemies of the American’s enemies. This is the American smear or sticky glue.
The state or the political leadership is clearly aware of the situation they are in and live with the compromise. At the same time they will do everything possible to minimize the risk and potential damage. What is troublesome and stupid is that the Sinkies embraced all these enemies of inconvenience as enemies. Imagine Sinkies talking about North Koreans as if they were arch enemies and will strike us with their nuclear bombs tomorrow. Or imagine Sinkies speaking bad about Iraq, Afghans, the Al Qaeda, the Talebans like enemies. Unfortunately they are, as we have joined the Dark Side. We have aligned ourselves on their enemy’s side.
States can claim permanent interest and temporary friends or temporary enemies. The mindset of people is difficult to switch sides so easily. And while enemies and friends of states are temporary, during the period of friendship or as foes, they can be rewards and there can also be harm, and we can be in harm’s way.
Do states have a choice in being neutral or not taking sides with the big gangsters? The ideal option is to be able to stay neutral in a multi polar world where the power is shared by several power centres. The lesser evil is to become a small gangster, but not to behave like small gangsters.
3/29/2012
Income ceiling raised for 2 rm flats in mature estates
The income ceiling to buy 2 rm flats has been raised from $2000 to $5000 for the affordable HDB flats in mature estates. But the ceiling of $2000 will stay for new estates to keep them affordable for the lower incomes.
This policy change is funny in many ways. If people can afford to buy a flat with only $1000 pm income, the raising to $5000 seems to be unnecessary. And if it needs a $5000 income to be able to afford a 2 rm flat, should not the other categories of ceiling be raised proportionately to make them affordable as well?
The official reasoning is that raising the ceiling would provide those earning $5000 another option to buy down instead of being forced to buy more expensive but still affordable flats. This is a dramatic change in policy direction from the HDB. In the past or current, the policy is to make sure that the buyer will expend whatever he has in his savings or his income to buy the most expensive flats available. If he earns a bit more, force him to buy from the sharks in the private sector. And this policy has singlehandedly led to the present situation whereby many did not have much left in their savings for retirement, and a 30 year mortgage repayment that eats up their disposable income. Oops, think I make a mistake here. Someone was reported in the main media that many Singaporeans have enough savings in the CPF for retirement. Believe me, it is true.
The old thinking of doing things right may not be right in this particular case. The little change in direction may help a little in allowing people to buy what they really can afford and still with some savings and a little more disposable income to go with. To focus on doing things right, HDB may want to seriously look at the old policy of forcing people to buy more expensive but still affordable flats and extend this policy change to all the other categories of affordable HDB flats. The right way to go is to remove the ceilings and build more flats to meet the demands. Don’t interfere with the people’s income and how they should spend their money. Many would want to buy smaller and really affordable flats and save at the same time for their retirement and a little luxury with the extra cash available.
The flawed policy of not building to frustrate the people by creating a false demand is obnoxious and definitely not right. Would HDB do the right thing and do it right by going all the way instead of just stopping at 2?
And believe me, some daft Sinkies will still argue that by not putting a ceiling on the income, there will be so big a demand for smaller flats that the lower income will be deprived of their chances of buying one. And some great talents will superimpose this view, when the simple thing to do is to build what the people want. If the demand is for cheaper 3 rm or 4 rm flats, then build it for the people.
Why insist on people spending all their money to buy more expensive affordable flats, or why not follow the private developers and build 650 sq ft flat to sell at $1m? Then keep harping that the quality of life will not be affected. Can do or no can do?
This policy change is funny in many ways. If people can afford to buy a flat with only $1000 pm income, the raising to $5000 seems to be unnecessary. And if it needs a $5000 income to be able to afford a 2 rm flat, should not the other categories of ceiling be raised proportionately to make them affordable as well?
The official reasoning is that raising the ceiling would provide those earning $5000 another option to buy down instead of being forced to buy more expensive but still affordable flats. This is a dramatic change in policy direction from the HDB. In the past or current, the policy is to make sure that the buyer will expend whatever he has in his savings or his income to buy the most expensive flats available. If he earns a bit more, force him to buy from the sharks in the private sector. And this policy has singlehandedly led to the present situation whereby many did not have much left in their savings for retirement, and a 30 year mortgage repayment that eats up their disposable income. Oops, think I make a mistake here. Someone was reported in the main media that many Singaporeans have enough savings in the CPF for retirement. Believe me, it is true.
The old thinking of doing things right may not be right in this particular case. The little change in direction may help a little in allowing people to buy what they really can afford and still with some savings and a little more disposable income to go with. To focus on doing things right, HDB may want to seriously look at the old policy of forcing people to buy more expensive but still affordable flats and extend this policy change to all the other categories of affordable HDB flats. The right way to go is to remove the ceilings and build more flats to meet the demands. Don’t interfere with the people’s income and how they should spend their money. Many would want to buy smaller and really affordable flats and save at the same time for their retirement and a little luxury with the extra cash available.
The flawed policy of not building to frustrate the people by creating a false demand is obnoxious and definitely not right. Would HDB do the right thing and do it right by going all the way instead of just stopping at 2?
And believe me, some daft Sinkies will still argue that by not putting a ceiling on the income, there will be so big a demand for smaller flats that the lower income will be deprived of their chances of buying one. And some great talents will superimpose this view, when the simple thing to do is to build what the people want. If the demand is for cheaper 3 rm or 4 rm flats, then build it for the people.
Why insist on people spending all their money to buy more expensive affordable flats, or why not follow the private developers and build 650 sq ft flat to sell at $1m? Then keep harping that the quality of life will not be affected. Can do or no can do?
3/28/2012
Lady got hit – acid in MRT train
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)