CPF - If they spend all their savings then how?

Heard Chuan Jin using this same argument again at the CPF forum. So? Is this an acceptable reason for the govt to hold back the people’s life savings? Many people would not have enough savings in their CPF anyway. This is a normal scenario in all countries. But very few would be so desperate to need govt handouts. So?

Whether people spent away their life savings prematurely, many would not have anything left or enough to feed themselves past 70 anyway, is a different problem and a different matter. Many would have other means and sources of income to keep them going. And for those who don’t have any money left, not necessary squandering their CPF savings away, as they just did not have the means to save enough, not clever enough to earn millions, what is the govt going to do about them?

Just because some people have some savings in their CPF, does it mean that the govt can grab hold of this money on the excuse or pretext that they would spend them and would have nothing in old age? How many have the good fortune to have enough savings to last through their lives?

What is the govt going to do with people that have no savings and still need to live on? These are stupid people, irresponsible people, they deserve to starve to death? Smart people and responsible people may also end up in such a situation through a stroke of bad luck or misfortune.

It is not a reason or a good reason for the govt to hold on to the people’s money in the CPF on the ground that they people would spend them and left with nothing. Many would spend them, for the right or wrong reasons. So? Is this a justifiable reason, morally and ethical reason to hijack the people’s savings, all the people’s savings, because a few may need help? Even God would not have the audacity or arrogance to make such a decision, to take the people’s money away from them.

Life is not so simple as one would expect it. Save, save a lot, be thrifty, be responsible and you will be alright. Some of the super talents and millionaire ministers may end up bankrupt and needing govt assistance one day.

What is the problem with the govt’s justification to withhold the people’s life savings, to manage it at its own discretion, without needing the consent of the people, the owners of the money?

What is the govt going to tell those who would not live past 65 or 70 and did not have the chance to spend their life savings to live a few good days or a few good years. There will be more who would not benefit from their life savings due to premature death than the few who would need govt assistance.

Please tell the people it is your right as a democratically elected govt to do such a thing.

Kopi Level - Red. Where is everyone?

World of Internet Brigade revealed

‘Much has been mentioned within the internet about the existence of the PAP Internet Brigade (a.k.a “PAP IB”), but few know how this secretive group operates, and who their puppet-masters are. The Singapore Hall of Shame (SHS) was given exclusive access to their inner workings thanks to one of their former members; Agent Kelly.

My Compass

The SHS plans to publish a series of articles, shedding light on their structure, their identities, and their methods. As a start, we explore the secretive Facebook Group, “My Compass”.

There are 4 “My Compass” administrators whom co-ordinate communication strategies for 260 members. Access to this by invitation-only group, is via recommendations of existing trusted members.

  

Upon receiving instructions by the administrators, unquestioning members spring into action to counter unfavourable chatter forming against PAP members or its linked entities. They operate in large numbers with the primary objective of drowning out negative comments and derailing the discussions on the internet.

In addition, they also monitor Facebook activities of opposition parties, and call for reinforcements to help counter statements that are critical of the ruling party. On mundane days, typical actions including like-ing the FB pages of the PAP MPs to boast the popularity of MPs. Some of their communications and actions are captured below:’ This is part of an article posted and reposted in several sites in the social media.

A people’s initiative, spontaneous, not financed by any body. What does this mean? On one side there is a group that is financed by a powerful organization, not sure if they are paid, to attack other bloggers and stirred shit in the social media. This is a very unethical thing that no respectable people will do, and no respectable organization will support and finance.

On the other side, there is a group of vigilantes formed by the people to defend those people being attacked. There is righteousness and high moral ground on the side of this group of people to defend justice against rogues and mercenaries out to harass and unnerve innocent people.

With these two groups of people engaging in battle in the social media, who would likely to be respected by the masses? Who would look like the evil doers, the despicable and the shameless?

The Singapore Hall of Shame group is like the freedom fighters taking on the gangsters. It would really be nice if they could expose the rogues and shame them in public. They would bring disgrace to their families if they are made known to be engaged in such hideous activities against their fellow men. And if they can be linked to whatever organizations, it will look ugly and embarrassing no matter how they denied their associations with such unethical practices.

Would the presence of the SHS bring about the end of such dubious activities in the social media or at least restrain their masters from going all out to embarrass themselves thinking that they could get away with it? The internet is very transparent despite the veneer of anonymity. All activities can be traced, by both sides.

Kopi Level - Green

SIA was just so lucky

According to all the information floating around, an SIA plane, ‘SQ 351 was 25km or just 1min 40sec behind MH 17 at 777′s cruise speed of 905km/h’. Whew! I doubt the rebels were monitoring the IFF or transponders codes the aircraft was sending out. Why did they shoot at MH17 and not other aircraft? One theory, they were aiming at Putin’s aircraft that was expected to be there about the same time. If that was the case, it could not be the works of the rebels as they are pro Russians. Here’s the Freudian Slip.

If it was the work of the rebels, and if they have IFF equipment, it is unlikely for them to want to shoot down a Malaysian aircraft. Malaysia is on friendly terms with the Russians. Any agency with IFF capability would know what they were shooting at and could decide otherwise. For any agency knowing that it was MH17, and to shoot it down, it must be done on purpose.

The other scenario that they just shoot at anything that was moving without knowing what it was could be a possibility. But would the culprits, whichever party, be so reckless to shoot at anything that moved and risked shooting down a friendly aircraft? It all points to the possibility that the culprit knew who they were shooting at.

If it was pure chance, trigger happy reckless rebels that did not care what they were shooting, what the hell was going on, then SIA was just sooooo lucky and MAS was just soooo unlucky. This is not a mindless and purposeless war, anarchy, with everyone was just shooting for the sake of shooting. No, do not think the people involved are stupid, did not know what they were doing. Give them some respect and credit for knowing what they were doing.

Could such a decision to shoot down an aircraft, possibly a civilian aircraft on a know flight corridor be made without thinking, without knowing what aircraft it was? The people with an agenda would want the world to believe what they want to make out of it.

Like the sinking of the Choenan, who would be blame for the downing and who would gain from it? These may give some idea as who could be behind it.

Kopi Level - Green

Cost of land of HDB flat

Roy Ngerng wrote in his latest article claiming that the cost of land of an average HDB flat is about $200,000 for a $300,000 flat. This will be raised in the 3rd ‘Return Our CPF’ protest rally at Hong Lim on 23 Aug. I am not sure how Roy derived at this number. Taking it as a good estimate, presuming Roy has done his homework, let’s see what this figure means?
 
Assuming that Roy is talking about a 1000 sq ft flat. And assuming that the block is 24 storey high. Now multiply that $200,000 by 24, it will give $4.8m. It will mean that each sq ft of the land will cost $4,800. Is this a reasonable sum to pay for a 99 year lease land on which a 99 year lease flat is built on? And the figure will be a staggering $6,000 per sq ft if it is a 30 storey high block of flats, and more if higher.
 
How much is the land cost in the private sector? Looks like Roy’s number is too high, or is it another undiscovered truth that Roy is going to talk about?

Kopi Level - Green

Getting tough on the US isn’t easy

William Pesek wrote an article in the Today paper titled, ‘Getting tough on China isn’t easy’ on 22 Jul. He quoted Hillary Clinton’s statement in 2009, ‘How do you deal toughly with your banker?’ I have thus redirected the same question and ask, ‘How do you deal toughly with your gangster debtor?’
 
China has bought up over US$1.3 trillion of Treasury Bills and in a way financing and paying for the Americans’ extravagance that often ended in China bashing. Most of America’s international policies were targeted at China and backed up by a huge military expenditure, to contain China, ironically paid by China. And the Americans are complaining about China, how to contain China to prevent it from overtaking the Americans as the world’s number One economy and military power.
 
This is the strangest relationship of the 21st Century. China paying the Americans to support a huge military force that they used to threaten China in every disagreement, dispute or contested situation, ranging from economics, trade deficits to regional squabbles far away from the American continent.
 
And the best part, the US is trying to get tough with China, talking tough with China and very eager to use force against China to prove who is in charge, financed by China. And China is paying for the aggressive and provocative stance of the Americans. The Americans are the friendly party, the non provocative one. The Chinese are the aggressive one, the provocateur. And the Americans are sending its military everywhere to confront the Chinese in business suits and bags of goods to trade.
 
From China’s perspective, it must be very tough lending so much money to a thug, an international gangster that only believed in the use of force and went about carry guns and bombs instead of peaceful negotiation. And this thug is threatening not to pay what he owes to China and devising all kinds of schemes to wash away its debt, printing money and more money that China cannot do anything about. Would China be able to get its money back if this gangster borrower decides not to pay? It is really very tough when the gangster puts his big gun on the table in every discussion as a show of force.
 
China is really finding it very difficult to get tough with this borrower, with debt up to his eyebrows, and demanding to borrow more when it does not have the same big gun to bring to the table to say no. Isn’t it precarious to lend so much money to a thug that China has no means of overpowering and worst, the thug is challenging the lender to a fight whenever an opportunity presents itself? It is playing wargames in China’s courtyard and telling China what can you do about it.

Who is finding it tough with who?

Kopi Level - Green. Nearly Blue. Thank you and kopi on me on 23 Aug at Hong Lim.