11/12/2012
A more deep seated problem in FT craze
The original concept of hiring FTs and foreign sportsmen and women was to use them as a catalyst to stimulate the growth of locals, to learn from them, to be better. And eventually, when our locals have reached a higher skill level and can compete in the international arena and win honours, the scheme could, I think, peters away. The intent was to train our locals, to raise their standards not to replace them with foreign talents especially in sports.
What happens to the quality of sportsmen and women in the few high profile sports like swimming, football and table tennis? You need me to tell you that they are now worst than before? Where are the Pat Chans and Joycelyn Tays and Junie Sngs? In football, where are the Fandis, the Quah brothers, the Rajagopals, the Samads? We can’t even beat a Malaysian state team when we were Champions in the Malaysia Cup, in many Southeast Asian tournaments. Are we improving or downgrading? How many international table tennis players, locals, have we produced?
The reality is that the dependency is growing like drugs. We are now more or less totally dependent on foreigners in these sports. The quality of locals is getting from bad to worst. This is a very serious matter as opportunities and resources spent on foreigners and not on locals would mean the latter would not get better. Soon there would not be any local talents left in these sports. The national football coach is another glaring example. We used to have Choo Seng Quee and some other local coaches. These are likely to have been buried and forgotten and nothing in the pipeline to replace the great foreign coaches who were imported to replace them.
What is more serious is in the industrial and commercial sectors. When we keep bringing in foreigners to replace the locals, we will soon be addicted to foreigners who will keep improving their skills and experience for the opportunities we gave them. Our locals that have been replaced will degenerate and become less skill and less experience less valuable and less marketable. It is a vicious cycle. We will end up with lesser skill locals and more skilled foreigners in our midst. It will come a time when we are highly dependent on foreigners and have serious problems weaning away from this dependency.
Having foreign talents to replace the locals have far reaching adverse consequences in the long term. Locals not given the chance, not given the opportunities will not be able to acquire the critically needed exposure and experience to move up the skill levels and professional competency. That is why though we are the biggest financial centre in Southeast Asia, our top bankers are always from foreign talents because we do not give our locals a chance.
Look at the political theatre, we have greenhorns and little boys and girls being placed in political leadership roles to learn the ropes. Not giving them such chances they will never be able to claim being there and done that. There is political training and renewal, but sadly this is lacking in the industries and in commerce and also in sports.
It is time to turn the clock around to train our own people, give them the opportunities to earn their rights to be at the top of their sports and professions. This is elementary, Watson! We are now bringing in inexperienced foreigners, train them, expose them, give them all the opportunities and resources to improve their skills and experience just to replace the locals. Is this not stupidity, what is? If we don’t give our own citizens the opportunities who will?
11/11/2012
Own a piece of art by an inhuman artist, Mother Nature
Tapestry
Many collectors have built a collection of paintings and other works of art by great painters. None has ever own a piece of painting created by Mother Nature. Now you can own a piece of painting conceptualised and painted by the hands of Mother Nature.
The Exhibition is at NUSS Guild House at Kent Ridge till 21 Dec 12.
Many collectors have built a collection of paintings and other works of art by great painters. None has ever own a piece of painting created by Mother Nature. Now you can own a piece of painting conceptualised and painted by the hands of Mother Nature.
The Exhibition is at NUSS Guild House at Kent Ridge till 21 Dec 12.
Sunday’s political trivials
Xi Jinping is expected to
take over the leadership of China after the national Congress that is now in progress.
There is a nice photo of him today in the Sunday Times, plus a few others in
his team. In fact the ST has been introducing the Chinese leaders for the past
weeks. A few distinct features can be drawn from the crop of Chinese leaders.
These include thick black hair nicely combed and oiled, a white shirt and a
govt issued casual zipped jacket on the outside.
According to ST’s China correspondent Grace Ng, these features have their
specific meanings. Nicely oiled and combed hair signifies pragmatism, white
shirt means rigid professionalism but tempered by a casual jacket probably
meaning not too dogmatic and rather down to earth, a leader closely in touch
with the ground. The whole package is simply a no nonsense and task oriented
pragmatic leadership, nothing frivolous.
What is obvious is the thick
black hair on the roof of these leaders. They must have taken the advice by LKY
seriously, that leadership must be kept young and vibrant, not oldies that are
stuck in the mud with their obsolescent ways of thinking and ideas. And they
will maintain this profile throughout their 4 or 8 years in power. Quite a
remarkable achievement, looking at Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao and the whole team.
They hardly age at all. Maybe the task is easy in a communist state. Maybe they
think less hard or no need to work so hard and thus were able to keep their
hair black in tact. I am really surprise that they could retain their youthfulness
while carrying such huge responsibilities and load on their shoulders. Their
hair only turned white after they left office. Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji were
two good examples. Perhaps they lost all the privileges and the good life in
office, no more free medical and goodies that came along while in high office.
Our leaders used to have some
similar features, black hair and a suit of simple white shirt and pants. I am
not sure if they have the same meaning as the Chinese leaders. Let me hazard a
guess. Thick black hair signifies youth. White shirt and pants are often
associated with pragmatism and even incorruptibility. These were the
characteristics of our past leaders and today it is a different story.
Our political leaders entered
politics young and with a nice black crop of hair. Heng Swee Kiat and the two
generals are good examples. But within a few terms they would all turn grey or
white, looking very wise and dignified. And they would stay that way till they
are retired.
The white shirts have changed
to something more casual and colourful. The favourite colour is pink or red.
And designer jacket is often seen in Parliament. Oh, one more thing, our
leaders are mostly nerdy looking in the sense that many put on glasses. The
difference is that the glasses could be fashionably thick framed like
celebrities. This could mean a more affluent society where life is more
enjoyable, living life to the fullest. There is no govt issue jacket to come
along.
The grey or white hair or no
hair must be telling. Working too hard or thinking too hard to run this unique
little island to be the best in the world. This must have taken its toll on
their crowning glory. A little dyeing could help to retain that youthful look
if they don’t mind trading the look of wisdom that came with grey and white, or
the classic balding professori image.
I think the Chinese leaders
are having a good deal, less stressful, and an easier job to handle. Or perhaps
if they were given a chance to stay as long as they want in power, they would
also look like our leaders, ageing wise men. I deliberately left out women as
they are still young and beautiful.
11/10/2012
Would China and Japan go to war over Diaoyu Islands?
This was the discussion topic
that had seen several reruns on CNA’s Perspective programme hosted by Pek Lian.
The participants were Tommy Koh and Lam Peng Er, the latter is likely to be a
Singaporean too, Victor Gao from China and Takaaki Kojima from Japan.
The issue of Diaoyu/Senkaku
is quite clear. The islands were seized from China under the Unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1894 after
China was defeated by Japan. They were war loots. The islands were supposed to be
returned to China after Japan’s defeat in WW2. But the Americans was tasked to be
the trustee, tried to return to Chiang Kai Shek, but he preferred the US to keep them in case he lost Taiwan to the Communists and had some where to run to. The US gave administrative control of the islands to Japan in 1972 after falling out with Communist China and
the start of the Cold War.
In 1972, Zhou Enlai and
Tanaka signed a communiqué agreeing to keep the status of the islands on hold,
but also with Japan agreeing to abide by the post war treaties of Potsdam and Cairo. The sovereignty of the islands was thus kept in the
back burner till it flared up again when Shintaro Ishihara hatched a scheme to
buy it from another Japanese, thus sealing the fate of the islands as Japanese
territories. China protested strongly against such a move.
On the pretext of easing
tension, Japanese PM tried to con the Chinese with another sure win scheme, to
nationalise the islands. Under both con jobs, the islands would be officially
recognised as Japanese islands if they were executed. And China would have lost the islands by a fait accompli for
not protesting.
The position of the two
Singaporeans was simple enough. Please don’t go to war as it would hurt both
countries. The neutral stance is understandable as they did not have any stakes
to consider.
The Chinese position was also
simple. The islands were Chinese territory and China would fight to keep them at all cost. China was willing to maintain status quo but Japan had pushed China to react and China would have to let the world know that these were
undisputed Chinese islands. Not negotiable.
The Japanese position was
also simple. It refused to acknowledge that the islands were seized from China and claimed that those were Japanese islands. And to
further perpetuate its con job, even accused China for raising tension.
The Chinese would not fall
victim to this con job. But Tommy Koh was conned all the way. He swallowed
hook, line and sinker thrown out by the Japanese. He did not even want to
dispute Japanese claim to the islands, and through his comments that was a
settled issue.
And he tried to throw smoke
to compare Germany and Japan’s remorse after the WW2 and urged both parties not to
go to war. The official position of Germany and Japan, to acknowledge the war atrocities and aggression, was
really a moot point and secondary in the discussion.
Tommy asked whether China would risk and waste resources and lives over a few
pieces of worthless rocks. Or would Japan do likewise over these rocks. He forgot that China lost the islands to the Japanese and the Japanese was
the illegal owner of Chinese islands.
Another point of naivety
exposed in Tommy was his belief that the US did not want to see a war between Japan and China. Unbelieveable to think that he is a veteran in
international relations! Yes, the US would not want to be involved in a direct war with China. An open conflict between Japan and China would be most welcomed. Whatever treaty it has with Japan, it would use it expediently to serve its selfish
interest. It would be in a very advantageous position to calibrate its
response, likely to start with lip service, then supply and sell more arms to Japan, and finally decide whether to commit arms and its
military forces to the conflict, depending on the outcome of the war. The
Chinese and Japanese would have to kill each other first before the Americans
decide what to do, just like WW2. Let them cripple themselves, their economies,
lives and resources. The Americans can march in as the victor at the closing
chapters.
The island dispute is really
about sovereignty, about national pride, about ownership. Why should China give up fighting for its own islands? Or why should Japan not return the islands to China without going to war?
Who is the net loser or gainer? Not going to war, China lost. Returning the islands to China, Japan did not lose anything and could lead to a real
closure to WW2. Why would Japan want to risk going to war again with China by keeping a few worthless pieces of rocks, in the
view of Tommy Koh, that it stole from China?
This is the real issue that
would have to be settled between China and Japan now or later, not the apologies and gestures of
remorse. Return the islands and everything would be back to square one and
bringing about a full closure of Japanese aggression against China and the Chinese people. Is this so hard to
understand? Why are the recalcitrant Japanese so persistent in holding on to
war loots it took by forced and risking a war with China some time tomorrow? They are peaceful people? They
started the war of aggression not only against China but the whole of East and Southeast Asia and against the US.
Sin is a great place for foreigners
'Olivier Desbarres, Barclays Capital’s Head of FX Strategy in Asia, is accused of going on a rampage outside his home and terrorizing workers early last month, The Times has reported.
In the video which has emerged online, a man that resembles the banker can be seen approaching the workers and screaming obscenities.
“I’m gonna go after you. I’m gonna burn your f**cking house down,” he shouts.
“You have no respect. You know what? You’re f**cking animals. Chinese f**cking animals… I have a life. I have a family. You break that, I will find your f**cking family. I can find it very easily – I’m a man with resources.”
Dressed in shorts and sandals, he is then seen grabbing up a large sheet of zinc panel and hurling it into the construction pit, narrowly missing two workers.'
I copy the above posted in TRE. I can only have great
praises for this ex colonial master for putting the ‘Chinese f**king animals’
down in their proper place. And his bank, Barclays Capital has sacked him which
is very unjust. He should be promoted to be the CEO. He has done the bank proud
by standing up for his rights. And the low down workers deserved to be spat on for
disturbing his peace.
Only in Sin could such ex colonial master relive their past
glory and strut away with his ego intact. Their former subjects would take
anything from them without protest. No wonder Sin is a top choice for
foreigners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)