After some release of pent up anger, most issues raised in cyberspace
would die a natural death as expected, just like sunrise and sunset. The
AIM issue is long gone and forgotten. The latest ballot box issue is
already on its way to history. That is the beauty of a first world
society, all sensible and rational people. Everything talk only, no
violence, very civilized. All they want is the right to express their
unhappiness or frustration. Once this is allowed and done, anger
dissipated, life goes on.
The govt must be comforted by this development. The earlier fear of the
internet is unfounded. The freedom of expression that was more limited
in the pre internet days when nothing much was heard for good reasons
became a worrisome preoccupation of the govt when internet first came
into the picture. How would the people react given this new freedom?
Should they be controlled, should internet be controlled? How would
internet interfere with the politics of the country? How would internet
influence the way people think and vote?
The truth is that nothing really changed. In fact internet has offered
an avenue for people to let off steam, vent their frustrations when they
needed to and to feel good about it when done. And in most cases there
is a feeling of well being when they could get things off their chest in
the internet. They had their final say.
Tan Jee Say and Tan Cheng Bock had their pieces published in cyberspace
questioning the suspicious reappearance of the ballot boxes. Having said
that and done with, case closed. There seems to be a closure that the
main media could not give. With internet, the injured or supposedly
wrong party or victim has the right to have a last stand. This is an
improvement over the old ways when these people would have to swallow
whatever perceived injustice quietly as they would not be heard. And
that could lead to them harbouring deep grievances that may seek an
outlet sooner or later in the most unexpected way.
Such feelings of outrage and seething sense of injustice could be
ameliorated by allowing the parties to say whatever they want, curse
whoever they want, and go home and have a good sleep.
This is a great contribution of the internet, to defuse a time bomb, to
make people feel better. Yaacob should take note of this and take his
hands off the internet to let the unhappy people say what they want.
Better this way than street protest and violence. With internet there
would not be any Spring. People will talk about their problems and
dissatisfaction verbally and better still if the govt could engage them
verbally as well. Uh, they called this communication and engaging the
people.
9/26/2013
Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest
ASSK was under house arrest on and off for more than 10 years as a
political prisoner. The authoritarian military junta in a way was quite
kind, I mean relatively, to let her stay in her own house. At least she
was at home most of the time and with her supporters around her. It was
not the solitary confinement type, and if I am not mistaken, she was
spared the rounds of torture that some political prisoners were put
through in other military dictatorship or authoritarian regime.
And she was released and allowed to contest in a general election, and won. And she is now travelling the world as a legitimate politician, a free woman. On these points, the military junta of Myanmar is not that bad after all. And who knows what could happen in the next general election. Would she be allowed to take over the govt of Myanmar, or would the military step in and have another coup and lock her up again if her party won?
With Thein Sein in charge, and if he is still around, or if the other military top brass are of the same thinking, there is a high possibility that a change of govt, a civilian govt could be in place in Myanmar. This is not bad, better in many democracies that a change in govt could bring out the military to seize power.
What do you think? Is the Myanmese junta more liberal, less ruthless and more democratic than Singapore?
And she was released and allowed to contest in a general election, and won. And she is now travelling the world as a legitimate politician, a free woman. On these points, the military junta of Myanmar is not that bad after all. And who knows what could happen in the next general election. Would she be allowed to take over the govt of Myanmar, or would the military step in and have another coup and lock her up again if her party won?
With Thein Sein in charge, and if he is still around, or if the other military top brass are of the same thinking, there is a high possibility that a change of govt, a civilian govt could be in place in Myanmar. This is not bad, better in many democracies that a change in govt could bring out the military to seize power.
What do you think? Is the Myanmese junta more liberal, less ruthless and more democratic than Singapore?
9/25/2013
Logical deduction by selective reasoning
Logical thinking is a highly demanded skill of an individual. But it is
also possible to teach people to think stupid and still logical and
sounding absolutely reasonable, and can even be mathematically proven.
Let me try, 3 children only drink tea or coffee while a fourth drinks chicken essence. Now if the result of this fourth child is better than the other 3, then it can be concluded that drinking chicken essence indeed can improve one’s grade. It can be the other way too.
Another example, most male Sinkies have done NS. And if a sample study on 3 of them and a foreign student from a university is conducted and found that the foreign student did better academically, it can be concluded that doing NS is bad for academic studies. Or some may even conclude that NS men are more stupid or less smart than those who did not do NS, ie foreigners and the local girls.
To confirm this finding, check out on the same cohort of girls against the NS men. If the girls are doing better, one more confirmation that doing NS makes the men stupid. Then look at the foreign talents and if they are appointed or employed in top positions over those who have done NS, this is second confirmation that doing NS really made our boys stupid.
With this astounding finding, the employers could go to the HR to demand recruiting people that have not done NS. NS makes men stupid. So all the top positions should rightfully go to foreigners or maybe girls who have not done NS.
See how logical the reasoning is? Nah, I don’t think this kind of thinking is being used to employ foreigners to fill up top positions in the country, both in the public and private sectors, both in govt and in the industries.
Logical deduction can be very misleading if the intention is to mislead. Ok, ok, this is academic or intellectual infidelity or dishonesty.
Let me try, 3 children only drink tea or coffee while a fourth drinks chicken essence. Now if the result of this fourth child is better than the other 3, then it can be concluded that drinking chicken essence indeed can improve one’s grade. It can be the other way too.
Another example, most male Sinkies have done NS. And if a sample study on 3 of them and a foreign student from a university is conducted and found that the foreign student did better academically, it can be concluded that doing NS is bad for academic studies. Or some may even conclude that NS men are more stupid or less smart than those who did not do NS, ie foreigners and the local girls.
To confirm this finding, check out on the same cohort of girls against the NS men. If the girls are doing better, one more confirmation that doing NS makes the men stupid. Then look at the foreign talents and if they are appointed or employed in top positions over those who have done NS, this is second confirmation that doing NS really made our boys stupid.
With this astounding finding, the employers could go to the HR to demand recruiting people that have not done NS. NS makes men stupid. So all the top positions should rightfully go to foreigners or maybe girls who have not done NS.
See how logical the reasoning is? Nah, I don’t think this kind of thinking is being used to employ foreigners to fill up top positions in the country, both in the public and private sectors, both in govt and in the industries.
Logical deduction can be very misleading if the intention is to mislead. Ok, ok, this is academic or intellectual infidelity or dishonesty.
US rhetoric at UN aims at 'bullying Russia, China' into Syria resolution
This article is from "Russia Today"
US rhetoric at UN aims at ‘bullying Russia, China’ into Syria resolution
Get short URL
Published time: September 24, 2013 21:57
United States President Barack Obama waves after speaking at the 68th United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2013 in New York City. (Andrew Burton/Getty Images/AFP)
US President Barack Obama requires a “mask” to legitimize unilateral action in Syria, Brian Becker, Director of Answer Coalition, told RT. He needs Russia and China to back a resolution so it can be conducted under a UN banner rather than the US alone.
RT: Obama says the US must remain heavily engaged in the Middle East because there won’t be anyone to fill the vacuum if Washington pulls out – is that a credible claim?
Brian Becker: Well, of course the US is acting in what it perceives to be its own interests, and I would have to say these are not the interests of the American people, per se, who don’t have big oil or banking investments in the Middle East. But there are big banks and there are big oil corporations and they have global interests, and they have particular interests in the Middle East. And the US policy is to protect those interests; that’s where two thirds of the world’s oil is.
President Obama says “we are an exceptional country,” meaning we shed our treasure and our blood for the interests of all but not for our own interests. I mean, that’s bogus, that’s completely a fraud. The US wants to dominate and it’s been the priority of its foreign policy to dominate this oil-rich region for the past 50 years.
RT: In defending past US military interventions, he also continued to build a case for regime change in Syria. How is that being received at the general assembly?
BB: I think all the countries of the world who want to be independent and sovereign countries who realize that President Obama – when he says “sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants” – that means the US government is arrogating to itself which regimes, which governments live, and which should be overthrown. So I think for those who are independent – they all see this as a great threat – not only to Syria, but to all those who may at some point defy the empire. Obama said in his speech “we a not an empire, it’s just useful propaganda,” but in fact the US government conduct itself exactly the way an empire does, only this time uses lofty rhetoric and noble causes as the motivation, presumably, for its interests.
US President Barack Obama proposes a toast during a luncheon at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly September 24, 2013 at the United Nations in New York. (AFP Photo/Don Emmert)
US President Barack Obama proposes a toast during a luncheon at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly September 24, 2013 at the United Nations in New York. (AFP Photo/Don Emmert)
RT: Let’s talk about those developments in Syria: The world’s chemical weapons watchdog – it’s said that it’s already cooperating on the chemical disarmament deal – so what about this idea of a UN Security Council resolution – would that actually change anything?
BB: We have to see – what the US and France are trying to do at the Security Council is to bully Russia and bully China in order to get wording into that resolution that would authorize them to carry out a military action under the rubric of the UN. But clearly the Obama administration says it has the authority to act unilaterally, but it would like to have some sort of shield or at least mask for that sort of unilateral operation. So they want to put in language that says that there must be consequences. And President Obama in his speech said if we don’t have consequences to enforce Syria’s compliance – which apparently Syria is complying – then it shows the UN has no ability to enforce international laws in its own resolutions.
We should remind President Obama the UN passed resolution 242 that said to Israel leave the Golan Heights, leave the West Bank – that was 46 years ago. No military action against Israel, and none is in the future. It’s a double standard, it’s hypocrisy. The US is trying to bully the UN Security Council to do what it really wants to do, which is to escalate the conflict in Syria, to overthrow their government.
RT: But isn’t it a fair condition – if Syria simply doesn’t play by the rules and doesn’t comply, then surely some sort of force has got to be put on it in order to make it comply – it’s a fair call isn’t it?
BB: I don’t think so – you notice President Obama said 98 percent of humanity says chemical weapons should be banned. The United States’ principle ally, Israel, refuses to get rid of its chemical weapons stockpile, or biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, so the Obama administrations is in fact quite selective about who can have and who shouldn’t have chemical weapons. But that’s not really the point.
Chemical weapons in this instance are a pretext for an escalating intervention. The Obama administration’s hand has been steadied because of global opposition, including massive domestic opposition in the United States. They’re trying to come back but they are in a weakened position right now.
US rhetoric at UN aims at ‘bullying Russia, China’ into Syria resolution
Get short URL
Published time: September 24, 2013 21:57
United States President Barack Obama waves after speaking at the 68th United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2013 in New York City. (Andrew Burton/Getty Images/AFP)
US President Barack Obama requires a “mask” to legitimize unilateral action in Syria, Brian Becker, Director of Answer Coalition, told RT. He needs Russia and China to back a resolution so it can be conducted under a UN banner rather than the US alone.
RT: Obama says the US must remain heavily engaged in the Middle East because there won’t be anyone to fill the vacuum if Washington pulls out – is that a credible claim?
Brian Becker: Well, of course the US is acting in what it perceives to be its own interests, and I would have to say these are not the interests of the American people, per se, who don’t have big oil or banking investments in the Middle East. But there are big banks and there are big oil corporations and they have global interests, and they have particular interests in the Middle East. And the US policy is to protect those interests; that’s where two thirds of the world’s oil is.
President Obama says “we are an exceptional country,” meaning we shed our treasure and our blood for the interests of all but not for our own interests. I mean, that’s bogus, that’s completely a fraud. The US wants to dominate and it’s been the priority of its foreign policy to dominate this oil-rich region for the past 50 years.
RT: In defending past US military interventions, he also continued to build a case for regime change in Syria. How is that being received at the general assembly?
BB: I think all the countries of the world who want to be independent and sovereign countries who realize that President Obama – when he says “sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants” – that means the US government is arrogating to itself which regimes, which governments live, and which should be overthrown. So I think for those who are independent – they all see this as a great threat – not only to Syria, but to all those who may at some point defy the empire. Obama said in his speech “we a not an empire, it’s just useful propaganda,” but in fact the US government conduct itself exactly the way an empire does, only this time uses lofty rhetoric and noble causes as the motivation, presumably, for its interests.
US President Barack Obama proposes a toast during a luncheon at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly September 24, 2013 at the United Nations in New York. (AFP Photo/Don Emmert)
US President Barack Obama proposes a toast during a luncheon at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly September 24, 2013 at the United Nations in New York. (AFP Photo/Don Emmert)
RT: Let’s talk about those developments in Syria: The world’s chemical weapons watchdog – it’s said that it’s already cooperating on the chemical disarmament deal – so what about this idea of a UN Security Council resolution – would that actually change anything?
BB: We have to see – what the US and France are trying to do at the Security Council is to bully Russia and bully China in order to get wording into that resolution that would authorize them to carry out a military action under the rubric of the UN. But clearly the Obama administration says it has the authority to act unilaterally, but it would like to have some sort of shield or at least mask for that sort of unilateral operation. So they want to put in language that says that there must be consequences. And President Obama in his speech said if we don’t have consequences to enforce Syria’s compliance – which apparently Syria is complying – then it shows the UN has no ability to enforce international laws in its own resolutions.
We should remind President Obama the UN passed resolution 242 that said to Israel leave the Golan Heights, leave the West Bank – that was 46 years ago. No military action against Israel, and none is in the future. It’s a double standard, it’s hypocrisy. The US is trying to bully the UN Security Council to do what it really wants to do, which is to escalate the conflict in Syria, to overthrow their government.
RT: But isn’t it a fair condition – if Syria simply doesn’t play by the rules and doesn’t comply, then surely some sort of force has got to be put on it in order to make it comply – it’s a fair call isn’t it?
BB: I don’t think so – you notice President Obama said 98 percent of humanity says chemical weapons should be banned. The United States’ principle ally, Israel, refuses to get rid of its chemical weapons stockpile, or biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, so the Obama administrations is in fact quite selective about who can have and who shouldn’t have chemical weapons. But that’s not really the point.
Chemical weapons in this instance are a pretext for an escalating intervention. The Obama administration’s hand has been steadied because of global opposition, including massive domestic opposition in the United States. They’re trying to come back but they are in a weakened position right now.
Medical appointments in world class health service
We have a world class health service, both private and public, and
equivalent to the best in the developed countries. This is something we
should be proud of and good for those who need medical care. This
morning there is a letter in the media by a Ms Tay Soh Hoon complaining
about a more than one year medical appointment for her husband with a
renal specialist in a public hospital, the Singapore General Hospital,
run like a private hospital as it has been privatized to be as efficient
as private hospitals.
Now, what is it like for someone with a medical condition that is deemed serious enough to need to see a specialist, in this case is something related to the kidney? Many would be worried to death and would want an immediate appointment with the specialist. A one month appointment would be deemed too long. A one year appointment is definitely unacceptable. How many with a condition could actually get into more serious trouble or may not survive a one year wait.
Waiting for one year in public privatized hospitals is becoming pretty common especially for non life threatening cases like fixing a set of braces. The waiting time could be 2 or 3 years. By then the urge or itch to have a set of braces may be gone. How many cases that were reasonably serious in nature and still need to wait for months or more for an appointment? Is this something acceptable from the professional opinion of the medical practitioners? Definitely it is not desirable and unacceptable for a world class medical health care service.
Heard that if one is willing to pay, go to the real private hospitals and appointments could be had immediately or within a few days depending on how much or desperate one is willing to pay. Heard also that in urgent cases, the waiting period could be shortened in public privatized hospitals as well. In this particular case, after many complaints for urgency, a 16 months wait was finally shorten to a year. Should Ms Tay rejoice for the victory? Should we celebrate that we have a world class healthcare system? Or maybe world class for those who can afford to pay in hard cash in the private hospitals?
What is going on? What world class? Have you heard of die waiting?
Now, what is it like for someone with a medical condition that is deemed serious enough to need to see a specialist, in this case is something related to the kidney? Many would be worried to death and would want an immediate appointment with the specialist. A one month appointment would be deemed too long. A one year appointment is definitely unacceptable. How many with a condition could actually get into more serious trouble or may not survive a one year wait.
Waiting for one year in public privatized hospitals is becoming pretty common especially for non life threatening cases like fixing a set of braces. The waiting time could be 2 or 3 years. By then the urge or itch to have a set of braces may be gone. How many cases that were reasonably serious in nature and still need to wait for months or more for an appointment? Is this something acceptable from the professional opinion of the medical practitioners? Definitely it is not desirable and unacceptable for a world class medical health care service.
Heard that if one is willing to pay, go to the real private hospitals and appointments could be had immediately or within a few days depending on how much or desperate one is willing to pay. Heard also that in urgent cases, the waiting period could be shortened in public privatized hospitals as well. In this particular case, after many complaints for urgency, a 16 months wait was finally shorten to a year. Should Ms Tay rejoice for the victory? Should we celebrate that we have a world class healthcare system? Or maybe world class for those who can afford to pay in hard cash in the private hospitals?
What is going on? What world class? Have you heard of die waiting?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)