More taxi drivers being beaten by FTs

I was quite aghasted at a video showing two locals charging at a taxi driver and wanting to beat him up for sounding his irritating horn. And then there was this uncle taxi driver that did not give way properly and was punched in the tummy by the other driver.  Seems like taxi drivers are getting into situations where they become easy punching bags.

And in the ST a few days ago, an angmoh FT lecturer whacked a taxi driver till his umbrella broke, and punched his face as well, and did not pay for the fare. In the same report another FT was also reported to have beaten another taxi driver.

Is this a new reality game in Sin City, beating up taxi driver and see who can do it best, and get a free ride at the same time? Why are taxi drivers such easy targets and can anything be done to protect them in this only protected occupation for Singaporeans? This also means that when a taxi driver is beaten, a Singaporean is beaten while doing his job, and for driving his passenger around, driving them home, providing them a chauffer service.

What a way to be rewarded! Where is Singa? Retired? Just as well. Singa is only meant for Sinkies, to be polite even if beaten.

Notable Quote by Yaacob Ibrahim

I think it is important for us to ensure that they (ordinary Singaporeans) read the RIGHT thing.  Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister of Information on BBC.

Who is this ‘us’? And what is so righteous about this ‘us’ to decide and ensure what is the RIGHT thing for Singaporeans to read? I think Singaporeans should read the right things in mysingaporenews. Boleh, betul?

MDA: Bloggers need not apply for licence

MDA has clarified that individual bloggers need not have to apply for licence under the new regulation. This is no cold comfort as things may change along the way. This controversial move to regulate something that is virtual and unlikely to be feasible without playing rough is still a mystery to many, and keeps everyone wondering why it is found so necessary to do so.

When a blogger puts up a post in cyberspace, it is just that, a post in cyberspace. Where is this cyberspace? It is in a way a void that you cannot see or touch, just like a memory in a human brain, there but not there. And the blogger making a post can be sitting here, in London, New York, Beijing or Tokyo, and he does not specify that his post is to go to Sin City or whatever place. Once in cyberspace, it is out there but not there at the same time. Only those who want to view them will see them, with a conscious effort of going to the url. Without making this effort, the post is transparent to anyone and virtually not there, non existence.

How can information (slander or personal attack etc aside) in cyberspace come under anyone or any country’s jurisdiction? And in a way, messing up someone’s blog in cyberspace is an intrusion into someone’s private space even if it has no privacy restriction. Why should anyone be given the right to go out there to block someone’s url because he does not like what the other person is writing? Put it in another way, can anyone go into a person’s diary to do as he pleases? Or can anyone, including govt, think it is ok, it has the right, to mess around with an individual’s diary or blog?

Every individual should have his right to write as he pleases in his own diary or blog, as long as he does not venture into areas of libel and scandal or posting offending comments to violate others or incite violence against anyone. Tiok boh? And there is no law to say he cannot leave his diary or blog about for people to assess them at their own free will.

The whole thing about licensing and regulating blogs is crazy and vain, and only control freaks or people with an obsessive fear of being exposed of their freakish acts or wrongdoings would be so perturbed by it. If one has nothing to hide, why is there so much fear, so much obsession, to want to control people speaking their minds? The doer has all the freedom to do as he pleases, and the commentator must also has all his freedom to have his views, contrary or conflicting views. Cannot meh? Any part that violates whatever safeguards to an individual’s right is all there in the legal provisions of the state.

We are just having a peep into this paranoid thinking process, that being in the govt, one is given the god forsaken right to do what one pleases, even in interfering with the free flow of information and speech, in what people can see, read, hear, write or say. And even the audacity to set standards in civility or language or way of writings. KNN, I want to write in whatever way or style or broken English, what has that got to do with the Govt?  Boh song huh? This is indeed a funny circus.

How dangerous can cyberspace be?

Before the new MDA regulation comes into effect tomorrow, social media is just another social site for individuals to write, comment, and chat to whoever they want as long as they don’t flirt with scandals and libels that will expose them to Sue. When the new regulation takes effect, website owners have to be extra careful with what appears on their website, intentionally, unintentionally, or being spooked.

Other than having to apply for a licence, put up a $50k bond, their pockets can be burnt real bad. The licence fee could be small change, the $50k bond is not. But the more treacherous is that the $50k bond would be the first to go, as advanced ransom payment. Then comes the big one, $200k to be exact, the maximum fine that can be imposed. And if suay suay kena fined for this sum, and unable to pay, hey, there is a jail to go to.

Now, is social media a dangerous thing, or can social media or cyberspace become such a dangerous place? Don’t forget that there are all kinds of strange fellas floating around in cyberspace and can turn an innocent website into hell.

Why go to university?

This is going to bug many parents and the children when going to university is being played down as something not really necessary. In the past, going to university is very simple. A degree will mean a good life, getting a good job to earn bigger pay and to bring up a family with all the trappings of wealth and comfortable things. It was so simple then.

Many people are still going to university for exactly this reason and nothing else. Getting a degree is for a practical reason, to land a better job and a better life. When this is no longer a valid reason, when the outputs, in monetary terms, time and resources, do not make up for the rewards of a university education, would people start to stop thinking of going to the university? Must study hard is losing its meaning.

There are of course many varied reasons for people wanting a university education. There are obvious benefits of a university education, a more knowledgeable and enlightened person, a perfecting of self. Though this can be done differently, like going through university of hard knocks, a formal education is a short cut with a well planned training programme.

To some people, going to university is a personal fulfillment of sort, acquisition of knowledge and the joy of learning. But this group is a minority. Not many will go to pursue a degree for the sake of getting a degree. It is luxury, a past time, a hobby and satisfaction.

Back to the basics, get a degree for practical reasons. Now, with the new development, getting a degree has lost its practical reasons. The practical thing to do is to acquire skills and training to increase one’s market value, to be employable. I think it boils down to this and nothing else. Training to value add, and to get that job or promotion and a better salary and a better life.

Would you believe that many people are training to downgrade, to get a lower paying job, because their skills and experienced and training are no longer marketable or not wanted because the world’s talents are here to compete with them? Still there are some who would train to switch jobs for a matter of interest and satisfaction. But to train for a lower paying job because of necessity, because the employers do not want to employ them for their better skill and expertise, quite a different proposition altogether. Very defeatist and depressing isn’t it?

Do the people have a choice to train to upgrade rather than to train to downgrade, or worst, train for the sake or belief in training but going no where, does not contribute to improving their market value?

What should the young be told in schools if going to university is no longer the lucrative and assured road to a better job and a better life? Close the universities, close the schools?