‘IBNlive.in.com, 4 Mar 2014
Singapore has topped a list of 131 cities globally to become the world's
most expensive cities to live in 2014, according to the Economist
Intelligence Unit (EIU), reported by the BBC. India's major cities -
including Mumbai and New Delhi - were found to be among the least
expensive in the world.’
This piece of news is really funny and I am going to write funnily. You
see, the talents from India are taking over many of the top jobs in Sin
City to help the City to grow. And they are getting all the plum jobs
and paid better than the Sinkies.
On the other hand, the daft Sinkies, after building this great City, are
getting less talented. I think it will be a good thing to switch
places. Let all the daft Sinkies sell their HDB flats and move over to
Mumbai or New Delhi while the Indians move over to take over Sin City.
Hopefully, this will put a big spur on the daft Sinkies’ hide and they
could rebuild Mumbai and New Delhi into a new and prosperous Sin Cities
with all the first world attributes like this most expensive city today.
It will give them the drive badly needed but lost through years of
affluence to be like their forefathers were, to build a new city for
themselves.
What do you think?
3/07/2014
The new moral code of the elite
The elite are living life in their ivory towers and would do all they
can to convince or coerce the masses that the new status quo is either
good, natural or inevitable, and nothing can be done about it.
The first myth they are selling is that the wide income gap is normal and that’s it, live with it, meaning they keep their high income and the masses keep their low income. They are so talented and the average guy is so untalented. They need to pay themselves so high or they will be poached by MNCs that are willing to pay them more. The income of the masses has to be kept low as the whole world is waiting outside our door to take the jobs at lower pay, and they are willing, hungry and more talented.
Another myth is the price of public housing, even when it is a 99 year lease, is affordable and reasonable at the kind of price they are selling and to be repayable over 30 or more years. And they are forcing young people to incur huge debt to service, while those with a little more income are forced to take even bigger debt in private housing. They want it that way, for whose benefits? Definitely not for the young home buyers who would be burdened for almost their entire working lives.
A new myth they have created is that taking public transport is gracious living, reduces jams on the roads. They are also saying the roads are congested and to reduce the jams, high car prices, including $100k COEs are necessary. And who will be enjoying the jam free roads? And they pay themselves crazily to make sure the high prices of car ownership look cheap and affordable. And what is the main cause of more cars on the roads? Is it high population? You dunno meh? And they are going to make the population density go even higher and higher.
Who would have to pay the price for the big squeeze? Not the elite for sure. They even try to con the daft Sinkies that living in dog kennel size flats would not affect the quality of life and to have more children, to have 3 generations living in the little kennel called home.
What else have they fiddled with to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the masses? They told you GST is good and meant to help the poor. How many of you believe in this new moral? They abolished estate duties to encourage the rich to get richer. The rationale is not to discourage the rich from becoming more enterprising, and their talent should not be punished. They deserved to be rich for generations as they are so talented, or talent breeds in the same pool of genes. My eye balls are rolling all over.
What else are the elite telling the masses? Keep more money in your CPF and be happy knowing you have so much money in their safe keeping. Only clever people will put their money in the CPF to grow and the money will not run away. It will be there forever, even after you die. Great moral wisdom isn’t it?
Oh, I nearly forgot, $600,000 is peanuts. Many peasants would never even see $6000 in their bank accounts in their life time. And housing prices drops by 1% they started to kpkb. But when housing prices went up by 200% or 300% they did not bother. They laughed all the way to the banks.
Another interesting new moral is for poor young men and women to defend the riches of the elite, to protect their mansions when the young men and women are paid not even peanuts but more like pittance. And they expect the young men and women to be valiant and to die defending their wealth without thinking or questioning. ‘Si beh kiang or si beh gong’?
Then there is this new wisdom or moral code, that it is the right thing to do to bring in foreigners to replace the citizens in good jobs and allow the citizens to be underemployed or unemployed. It is called meritocrazy! And the citizens are threatened to buck up or their wives and daughters would become maids. Why is there a need for a defence force, and what is there to defend when foreigners are invited to feast themselves at the expense of citizens, to boss over the citizens, to cheat the citizens?
Would the deregulation of the financial industry to allow the banks to do as they pleased, to create money out of nothing, be the new moral code of the elite? You tell me.
This new moral code is not exhaustive. You could have seen and heard even more than are written here. This is the new morality of the elite. And they would tell the daft that these are the hard truths and they have to accept it, like it or not.
The first myth they are selling is that the wide income gap is normal and that’s it, live with it, meaning they keep their high income and the masses keep their low income. They are so talented and the average guy is so untalented. They need to pay themselves so high or they will be poached by MNCs that are willing to pay them more. The income of the masses has to be kept low as the whole world is waiting outside our door to take the jobs at lower pay, and they are willing, hungry and more talented.
Another myth is the price of public housing, even when it is a 99 year lease, is affordable and reasonable at the kind of price they are selling and to be repayable over 30 or more years. And they are forcing young people to incur huge debt to service, while those with a little more income are forced to take even bigger debt in private housing. They want it that way, for whose benefits? Definitely not for the young home buyers who would be burdened for almost their entire working lives.
A new myth they have created is that taking public transport is gracious living, reduces jams on the roads. They are also saying the roads are congested and to reduce the jams, high car prices, including $100k COEs are necessary. And who will be enjoying the jam free roads? And they pay themselves crazily to make sure the high prices of car ownership look cheap and affordable. And what is the main cause of more cars on the roads? Is it high population? You dunno meh? And they are going to make the population density go even higher and higher.
Who would have to pay the price for the big squeeze? Not the elite for sure. They even try to con the daft Sinkies that living in dog kennel size flats would not affect the quality of life and to have more children, to have 3 generations living in the little kennel called home.
What else have they fiddled with to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the masses? They told you GST is good and meant to help the poor. How many of you believe in this new moral? They abolished estate duties to encourage the rich to get richer. The rationale is not to discourage the rich from becoming more enterprising, and their talent should not be punished. They deserved to be rich for generations as they are so talented, or talent breeds in the same pool of genes. My eye balls are rolling all over.
What else are the elite telling the masses? Keep more money in your CPF and be happy knowing you have so much money in their safe keeping. Only clever people will put their money in the CPF to grow and the money will not run away. It will be there forever, even after you die. Great moral wisdom isn’t it?
Oh, I nearly forgot, $600,000 is peanuts. Many peasants would never even see $6000 in their bank accounts in their life time. And housing prices drops by 1% they started to kpkb. But when housing prices went up by 200% or 300% they did not bother. They laughed all the way to the banks.
Another interesting new moral is for poor young men and women to defend the riches of the elite, to protect their mansions when the young men and women are paid not even peanuts but more like pittance. And they expect the young men and women to be valiant and to die defending their wealth without thinking or questioning. ‘Si beh kiang or si beh gong’?
Then there is this new wisdom or moral code, that it is the right thing to do to bring in foreigners to replace the citizens in good jobs and allow the citizens to be underemployed or unemployed. It is called meritocrazy! And the citizens are threatened to buck up or their wives and daughters would become maids. Why is there a need for a defence force, and what is there to defend when foreigners are invited to feast themselves at the expense of citizens, to boss over the citizens, to cheat the citizens?
Would the deregulation of the financial industry to allow the banks to do as they pleased, to create money out of nothing, be the new moral code of the elite? You tell me.
This new moral code is not exhaustive. You could have seen and heard even more than are written here. This is the new morality of the elite. And they would tell the daft that these are the hard truths and they have to accept it, like it or not.
6.9m is not the target, only for planning
This is true. The 6.9m population for 2030 is only a part of the
planning process. Grace Fu announced in Parliament that population
growth for 2013 was 80,000, 30k from newborns, 20k from new citizens and
30k from PRs. And this is the slowest growth in the last 10 years, a
pull back after the unprecedented protest at Hong Lim Park. What would
it be like without the protest is left to your own imagination.
The govt is ‘pulling back’ its plan for population growth! Really? At this rate, with a population of 5.4m, and if the govt is to add 80k every year, in 10 years, the population will be 6.2m. By 2030 it will add in another 560k to make it to 6.67m, a whisker away from the 6.9m planned.
So, would we have 6.67m or 6.9m in 2030? And after 2030, if growth is a necessity, would the population still continue to grow at the same rate and where will it end?
Anyone wondering why is there such an obsession to grow the population by hook or by crook. No population growth means no economic growth, no jobs for Sinkies but plenty of jobs for foreigners? It is like a drug addict, no matter how many rounds of cold turkeys, or how many times thrown into jail, die die must have the fix. No matter how many times the people protest, the population must grow as planned.
Does it mean that the country will collapse or something worse will happen if the population is not boosted? What is so critical that the govt must ignore the complaints and wishes of the people that it must go against the people?
Why? What is the intent of the govt? What is the real reason for this outrageous and unacceptable policy to be pushed with total disregard of the people’s will? There must be something very serious that the govt is not telling the people for wanting to go ahead with the population growth that the people did not want and opposed to it.
Or is this the best this one trick pony can do with the millions they are paid? They just cannot think of any better alternatives?
Why? Would the govt tell the people why it is so desperate for population growth? Where is the transparency and accountability? Why the secrecy? Tell the people the alternatives, but not the kind that our women folks will become maids.
Kopi Level - Green
The govt is ‘pulling back’ its plan for population growth! Really? At this rate, with a population of 5.4m, and if the govt is to add 80k every year, in 10 years, the population will be 6.2m. By 2030 it will add in another 560k to make it to 6.67m, a whisker away from the 6.9m planned.
So, would we have 6.67m or 6.9m in 2030? And after 2030, if growth is a necessity, would the population still continue to grow at the same rate and where will it end?
Anyone wondering why is there such an obsession to grow the population by hook or by crook. No population growth means no economic growth, no jobs for Sinkies but plenty of jobs for foreigners? It is like a drug addict, no matter how many rounds of cold turkeys, or how many times thrown into jail, die die must have the fix. No matter how many times the people protest, the population must grow as planned.
Does it mean that the country will collapse or something worse will happen if the population is not boosted? What is so critical that the govt must ignore the complaints and wishes of the people that it must go against the people?
Why? What is the intent of the govt? What is the real reason for this outrageous and unacceptable policy to be pushed with total disregard of the people’s will? There must be something very serious that the govt is not telling the people for wanting to go ahead with the population growth that the people did not want and opposed to it.
Or is this the best this one trick pony can do with the millions they are paid? They just cannot think of any better alternatives?
Why? Would the govt tell the people why it is so desperate for population growth? Where is the transparency and accountability? Why the secrecy? Tell the people the alternatives, but not the kind that our women folks will become maids.
Kopi Level - Green
3/06/2014
China should not apologise for defence budget
Though China’s defence budget has been increasing and now second only to
the Americans, it is only a fraction of the American defence budget.
Why is it that no one is complaining about the Americans having an
obtuse defence budget that allows them to invade countries after
countries but instead complaining about China’s small budget? Why are
the Americans and some silly countries complaining about the Russians
using force to invade a smaller country like Ukraine when the Americans
have been doing the same and in bigger scale in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan
and Pakistan?
China is a big country and needs a big military to defend its national interests. China had been a victim of western and Japanese aggression and invasion for more than a hundred years when it was militarily weak. It must learn from its history not to be weak again and be victims of foreign aggression.
At the height of Japanese militarism, the Japanese pointedly told the Chinese Viceroy, Li Hong Chang, that it was China’s fault for being weak and invited aggression. And Japan was the biggest culprit in taking advantage of China’s weakness to invade China and Korea.
What is Japan complaining about China’s bigger military budget? Is Japan thinking that China must be militarily weak so that it could take advantage of China’s weakness once again to invade China?
China should remind the Japanese of their aggression and pointly tell the Japanese that China must be stronger militarily than Japan to stop Japanese from adventurism. And should Japan dare try to invade China, China would return the favour by invading Japan. The Japanese only understand the logic of military power. And it has rearmed itself to the teeth though it was against its pacifist constitution to do so.
China should not apologise to any country to be a super military power. It has to be strong to prevent any country from thinking it is ok to invade China or to mess around with China or claim Chinese territories as theirs. A strong China would bring peace to the world as it would stop any country from making mischievous plan against China. A weak China will make itself sexy for foreign invasion, and would make smaller countries easy targets for the Americans to invade as well, without China to say No to the Americans. Countries in the Middle East, Africa and SE Asia particularly the Asean countries will have to bear with the naked use of power by the Americans without a powerful China.
China is a big country and needs a big military to defend its national interests. China had been a victim of western and Japanese aggression and invasion for more than a hundred years when it was militarily weak. It must learn from its history not to be weak again and be victims of foreign aggression.
At the height of Japanese militarism, the Japanese pointedly told the Chinese Viceroy, Li Hong Chang, that it was China’s fault for being weak and invited aggression. And Japan was the biggest culprit in taking advantage of China’s weakness to invade China and Korea.
What is Japan complaining about China’s bigger military budget? Is Japan thinking that China must be militarily weak so that it could take advantage of China’s weakness once again to invade China?
China should remind the Japanese of their aggression and pointly tell the Japanese that China must be stronger militarily than Japan to stop Japanese from adventurism. And should Japan dare try to invade China, China would return the favour by invading Japan. The Japanese only understand the logic of military power. And it has rearmed itself to the teeth though it was against its pacifist constitution to do so.
China should not apologise to any country to be a super military power. It has to be strong to prevent any country from thinking it is ok to invade China or to mess around with China or claim Chinese territories as theirs. A strong China would bring peace to the world as it would stop any country from making mischievous plan against China. A weak China will make itself sexy for foreign invasion, and would make smaller countries easy targets for the Americans to invade as well, without China to say No to the Americans. Countries in the Middle East, Africa and SE Asia particularly the Asean countries will have to bear with the naked use of power by the Americans without a powerful China.
A new moral code, a new legal system
Ross Ashcroft said this in his documentary called The Four Horsemen,
‘When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together
in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal
system that authorises it and a moral code that glorifies it’.
Some of you may miss the significance of this statement on the state of decadence. It is a truism that transcends time, society, culture and ideology. Remember what happened to the Animal Farm in the final chapters? I had a rude reminder of this kind of mindset last night over Channel News Asia in the programme SG+ hosted by Melanie Oliveiro. It was all about the idealism of a young socialist and the thinking of a decadent establishment. The topic was about the widening income gap between the rich and poor and the standard replies of the decadent mind to brush aside the youthful ideas of socialism.
Every misgiving was quickly brushed away by shallow excuses. The points that the income gap should be closed and the rich taxed more were casually rebutted by well rehearsed replies of a new moral code. The growing income gap is a normal thing in capitalism, must be accepted and nothing should be done to curb it. We must not kill the initiative and entrepreneurial spirit of the rich. Let them grow richer. We don’t want to be all poorer like in communism.
Did anyone suggest to kill their entrepreneurial skill? Did anyone want to tax them to run away? Did anyone want everyone to be poor communist? Actually this is an outdated mindset. You need to be communist to be rich. The new rich are the communist. Ask the comrades visiting the shopping paradise of the world’s fashion capitals and they will tell you they are communist. The capitalists are living in debt except for the super rich.
We can help the poor by education and a level playing field. We should not bring back estate duties. There is nothing wrong with the rich passing their wealth to their children. We will help the poor to be rich, would that not be better? Why rob the rich to give it to the poor? The polite socialist corrected this by saying, no, it is not so silly to just take from the rich to give to the poor. Why make such a silly argument like daft children? The taxes could, yes, go to help the poor in education and assistance schemes to make them help themselves.
There are rich not because they were entrepreneurial and investing in industries and taking big risk. There are many that turned rich by collecting salaries and passive incomes for doing nothing or doing very little. But this part must not be spoken. The new moral code is to facilitate some people to get rich by association without much contribution, or just by bullshiting.
And everything is legally right, supported by a new legal system. The Americans went much further by allowing the banks to gamble their clients’ money or gamble against their clients, totally legal. Their laws have been changed and new laws passed to allow such crimes to become not crimes. Their stock exchanges were supposed to operate under a fair system and a level playing field but no more. The unfairness and unlevel playing field were not spoken, nobody wants to know or talk about it. When crimes are no longer crimes, the decadence has reached its peak.
It is only a matter of time when the system is brought down on its knee and the perpetrators be put behind bars. A new social moral code and legal system that are more equitable would be brought in to replace the decadence legal system and moral code the rich elite have created for themselves, to protect their vested interests.
You guys should watch the repeat broadcast of this programme these few days or view it at CNA’s archive to know what I mean. It is a classic production. The rich elite will justify their wealth and their robbery by false and shallow pretences, sophistry that only they believe in.
Some of you may miss the significance of this statement on the state of decadence. It is a truism that transcends time, society, culture and ideology. Remember what happened to the Animal Farm in the final chapters? I had a rude reminder of this kind of mindset last night over Channel News Asia in the programme SG+ hosted by Melanie Oliveiro. It was all about the idealism of a young socialist and the thinking of a decadent establishment. The topic was about the widening income gap between the rich and poor and the standard replies of the decadent mind to brush aside the youthful ideas of socialism.
Every misgiving was quickly brushed away by shallow excuses. The points that the income gap should be closed and the rich taxed more were casually rebutted by well rehearsed replies of a new moral code. The growing income gap is a normal thing in capitalism, must be accepted and nothing should be done to curb it. We must not kill the initiative and entrepreneurial spirit of the rich. Let them grow richer. We don’t want to be all poorer like in communism.
Did anyone suggest to kill their entrepreneurial skill? Did anyone want to tax them to run away? Did anyone want everyone to be poor communist? Actually this is an outdated mindset. You need to be communist to be rich. The new rich are the communist. Ask the comrades visiting the shopping paradise of the world’s fashion capitals and they will tell you they are communist. The capitalists are living in debt except for the super rich.
We can help the poor by education and a level playing field. We should not bring back estate duties. There is nothing wrong with the rich passing their wealth to their children. We will help the poor to be rich, would that not be better? Why rob the rich to give it to the poor? The polite socialist corrected this by saying, no, it is not so silly to just take from the rich to give to the poor. Why make such a silly argument like daft children? The taxes could, yes, go to help the poor in education and assistance schemes to make them help themselves.
There are rich not because they were entrepreneurial and investing in industries and taking big risk. There are many that turned rich by collecting salaries and passive incomes for doing nothing or doing very little. But this part must not be spoken. The new moral code is to facilitate some people to get rich by association without much contribution, or just by bullshiting.
And everything is legally right, supported by a new legal system. The Americans went much further by allowing the banks to gamble their clients’ money or gamble against their clients, totally legal. Their laws have been changed and new laws passed to allow such crimes to become not crimes. Their stock exchanges were supposed to operate under a fair system and a level playing field but no more. The unfairness and unlevel playing field were not spoken, nobody wants to know or talk about it. When crimes are no longer crimes, the decadence has reached its peak.
It is only a matter of time when the system is brought down on its knee and the perpetrators be put behind bars. A new social moral code and legal system that are more equitable would be brought in to replace the decadence legal system and moral code the rich elite have created for themselves, to protect their vested interests.
You guys should watch the repeat broadcast of this programme these few days or view it at CNA’s archive to know what I mean. It is a classic production. The rich elite will justify their wealth and their robbery by false and shallow pretences, sophistry that only they believe in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)