I am starting to question myself as to who really built this city. One
thing for sure, it cannot be Singaporeans. Singaporeans are simply daft
and got no talent. If there are any Singaporeans with some talent, they
can only be found in the govt, earning millions happily paid by the daft
to control them.
There was this great city paradise once called Singapore that was handed
to the Singaporeans. Now it is turning into a 3rd World slum, or soon
it will be one. The Singaporeans are so ungracious, they are so unkind,
they are so wicked, this part is true if you know how some of them
abused their maids, and they are xenophobic also.
And the island, once the cleanest city state in the world, is now
getting so dirty with litters and rubbish everywhere, it is going to
become a slum. It must be the fault of the daft Singaporeans. And
despite years and years of education and no littering campaigns, they
still cannot cut this bad habit and keep on littering. Look at the beer
bottles and plastic bags all over the place, in public parks, in open
fields, everywhere.
The Singaporeans are incorrigible, cannot be taught to be gracious, to
look after a clean city handed to them for safe keeping. And they can
all boast about being 1et World citizens, being very well educated, but
they could not keep their little island clean.
No wonder the govt is replacing them with foreigners from the 3rd World
that are better in all ways, even in cleanliness. The foreigners came to
sweep the grounds and keep the grounds clean. The foreigners are very
nice people, very kind, very gracious, and do not litter.
As for the Singaporeans, they don’t even treat this island as their
country and feel very happy to litter everywhere, dirty everywhere,
because it does not belong to them. It is good to have the foreigners
here to teach the Singaporeans how to live well and live clean, keep
their city clean.
True or not? Do the Singaporeans deserve to go the dodo way?
PS. Every silly bugger, local and foreign, is pointing the finger at the Singaporeans. This must be the right thing to do, so I just join the bandwagon, in Singaporean bashing.
Kopi Level - Green
7/30/2014
CPF – No good reason to hold back the people’s money after 55
Over the years, and in the last few weeks, many people have been
regurgitating the same few reasons for the govt to withhold or retain
the people’s life savings for as long as the govt so decides. And none
of the reason is acceptable, reasonable, logical, sensible, justifiable,
morally ethical, believeable… without sounding deceitful, childish and
foolish, to hold back the life savings of a few million citizens of
sound mind, sensible, responsible, mature, knowledgeable, experience and
financially able to manage their own money. Many of those reaching 55
are well educated men and women holding very responsible positions in
top management, professionals, but all lumped together like the
ignorant, reckless, irresponsible and uneducated peasants that would
throw away all their money in a moment of fancy or be cheated of
everything.
The top reason, what if they spend all their money quickly? So?
The next hot favourite, what if they spend their money on pretty mei meis or go to Batam or Bintang or Lijiang? So?
What if they go to the casinos and gamble everything away? So?
What if they splurge on cars or luxury items to live like a king for a few days? So?
What if they really did not know how to manage their money? So?
What if they got cheated by the con men and con women? So?
What if they adopted some pretty god daughters who happily addressed them as sugar daddy? So?
What if they stand on top of a building and threw all their money away? So?
What if they live to 80, 90 or 100 years? So?
There are many reasons that we cannot think of, cannot imagine of, that a person would squander all his money withdrawn from the CPF? So? For every one of these reasons, or a combination of these reasons, or for all the above reasons, is it good enough a reason for the govt to withhold the money of all the innocent, sensible and responsible from them at 55?
The act of withholding all the people’s money just because of a few that would squander their money away, one way or another, is as good as condemning every one reaching 55 as idiots, irresponsible, imbeciles, and stupid. All will be found guilty and must be punished for a crime they did not commit or would not commit but on the assumption that they will commit. What kind of reasoning is that? What kind of justice is that? Everyone presumed guilty, presumed to be reckless and irresponsible with their money?
Such a reasoning and action cannot even hold water in a 3rd World country where the majority of the people are uneducated and ignorant. We are talking about a population of educated, widely travelled, experienced, knowledgeable and responsible people at the prime of their lives and would remain so for another 20 or 30 years! Why can’t they be trusted with their own money? Which boy or girl in the govt said so?
And this is not even an issue. There is no good reason to retain or keep a person’s life savings from him when he/she reaches 55. Absolutely no good reason. Period. Even if he is of unsound mind, his family should have the right to take care of him and his money. This is private matter. What has the govt got to do with it?
To accede to such logic is a very dangerous precedent. In the same thinking, all the people can be put in jail to protect their lives as some are found to jump onto train tracks or walked into the reservoir. Could a well educated populace be stupid enough to say such reasoning is good, healthy and ethically correct to be used to restrict or restrain the freedom of the people and the use of their money? It is unbelieveable that some really think it is ok.
What right has the govt to meddle with the people’s money? It is not your money, dummy.
Kopi Level - Green
The top reason, what if they spend all their money quickly? So?
The next hot favourite, what if they spend their money on pretty mei meis or go to Batam or Bintang or Lijiang? So?
What if they go to the casinos and gamble everything away? So?
What if they splurge on cars or luxury items to live like a king for a few days? So?
What if they really did not know how to manage their money? So?
What if they got cheated by the con men and con women? So?
What if they adopted some pretty god daughters who happily addressed them as sugar daddy? So?
What if they stand on top of a building and threw all their money away? So?
What if they live to 80, 90 or 100 years? So?
There are many reasons that we cannot think of, cannot imagine of, that a person would squander all his money withdrawn from the CPF? So? For every one of these reasons, or a combination of these reasons, or for all the above reasons, is it good enough a reason for the govt to withhold the money of all the innocent, sensible and responsible from them at 55?
The act of withholding all the people’s money just because of a few that would squander their money away, one way or another, is as good as condemning every one reaching 55 as idiots, irresponsible, imbeciles, and stupid. All will be found guilty and must be punished for a crime they did not commit or would not commit but on the assumption that they will commit. What kind of reasoning is that? What kind of justice is that? Everyone presumed guilty, presumed to be reckless and irresponsible with their money?
Such a reasoning and action cannot even hold water in a 3rd World country where the majority of the people are uneducated and ignorant. We are talking about a population of educated, widely travelled, experienced, knowledgeable and responsible people at the prime of their lives and would remain so for another 20 or 30 years! Why can’t they be trusted with their own money? Which boy or girl in the govt said so?
And this is not even an issue. There is no good reason to retain or keep a person’s life savings from him when he/she reaches 55. Absolutely no good reason. Period. Even if he is of unsound mind, his family should have the right to take care of him and his money. This is private matter. What has the govt got to do with it?
To accede to such logic is a very dangerous precedent. In the same thinking, all the people can be put in jail to protect their lives as some are found to jump onto train tracks or walked into the reservoir. Could a well educated populace be stupid enough to say such reasoning is good, healthy and ethically correct to be used to restrict or restrain the freedom of the people and the use of their money? It is unbelieveable that some really think it is ok.
What right has the govt to meddle with the people’s money? It is not your money, dummy.
Kopi Level - Green
7/29/2014
The history of mercenaries or foreigners in uniform
In modern history, the practice of using foreigners or employing
foreigners in uniform was likely to originate from the colonial powers.
The European powers, the Japanese, all recruited foreigners to be
soldiers and policemen, to assist them in controlling their colonies.
The British were notables for having army units in big numbers, regiment
sizes, in India to govern the Indian subcontinent. And during the wars,
these units were ordered to fight side by side with the British
soldiers.
The Japanese recruited the Koreans and Taiwanese to rule their colonies in Southeast Asia, as defensive forces, guarding installations and some as fighting units. What was clear in the composition of these foreign uniform units was that they were used to control the colonies and foreigners. The Japanese would not, never, use the Koreans or the Taiwanese in Japanese soil to guard and check the Japanese citizens.
This was the same for the British and other European powers. The foreign soldiers would only be used to control the subjects of the Empire, never to control and to have authority over their own kinds. The Indian military and police units were used to control the Indians and rule India. The Gurkhas too were to control the colonies and to defend the Empire. And these units were always commanded by the British or the Europeans in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
No sensible country with some pride and dignity, and ‘thinking’, would recruit foreigners and give them authority over their own citizens. There is also the security risk of foreigners revolting against the masters as had happened in India and right in Singapore by the Sepoy Line units.
Today, would there be countries that would voluntarily go ahead to recruit foreigners into their military and police forces to have authority over their own citizens, to guard and rule over their own citizens? What would it look like if a country recruited foreigners to ‘protect and defend’ its territory, to guard its immigration points, key installations and depots and to ‘protect its people’ or to prevent its people from mischiefs or civil disobedience? What would it be like if the foreigners in uniform were to arrest the citizens for whatever reasons or to shoot at the citizens?
And the ultimate security fear, if the foreigners rebelled and take over the country? The British, Japanese and European powers were too smart for that. They only used the foreigners to guard and rule over foreigners, and with their own officers in charge. They were the masters and would rule the foreigners, never the other way. Never would they allow foreigners to rule over their people in the days of Empires.
Things have changed today with the blurring of nationalities and citizenship. The karmic retribution has resulted in the colonial masters having to absorb subject people from their former colonies to be their citizens, and to be in uniformed. And the dark Africans and Asians could be arresting English men and women in the streets of London or French in Paris. But it would not happen in Japan. It is unthinkable to the Japanese to have foreigners in uniform in their homeland and to have authority over the Japanese. Japan would still be Japan and belong to Japan. England and many European countries are gradually being colonised by the very people they colonised in the days of Empires. There is a process of reversed colonisation in Europe.
Kopi Level - Green
The Japanese recruited the Koreans and Taiwanese to rule their colonies in Southeast Asia, as defensive forces, guarding installations and some as fighting units. What was clear in the composition of these foreign uniform units was that they were used to control the colonies and foreigners. The Japanese would not, never, use the Koreans or the Taiwanese in Japanese soil to guard and check the Japanese citizens.
This was the same for the British and other European powers. The foreign soldiers would only be used to control the subjects of the Empire, never to control and to have authority over their own kinds. The Indian military and police units were used to control the Indians and rule India. The Gurkhas too were to control the colonies and to defend the Empire. And these units were always commanded by the British or the Europeans in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
No sensible country with some pride and dignity, and ‘thinking’, would recruit foreigners and give them authority over their own citizens. There is also the security risk of foreigners revolting against the masters as had happened in India and right in Singapore by the Sepoy Line units.
Today, would there be countries that would voluntarily go ahead to recruit foreigners into their military and police forces to have authority over their own citizens, to guard and rule over their own citizens? What would it look like if a country recruited foreigners to ‘protect and defend’ its territory, to guard its immigration points, key installations and depots and to ‘protect its people’ or to prevent its people from mischiefs or civil disobedience? What would it be like if the foreigners in uniform were to arrest the citizens for whatever reasons or to shoot at the citizens?
And the ultimate security fear, if the foreigners rebelled and take over the country? The British, Japanese and European powers were too smart for that. They only used the foreigners to guard and rule over foreigners, and with their own officers in charge. They were the masters and would rule the foreigners, never the other way. Never would they allow foreigners to rule over their people in the days of Empires.
Things have changed today with the blurring of nationalities and citizenship. The karmic retribution has resulted in the colonial masters having to absorb subject people from their former colonies to be their citizens, and to be in uniformed. And the dark Africans and Asians could be arresting English men and women in the streets of London or French in Paris. But it would not happen in Japan. It is unthinkable to the Japanese to have foreigners in uniform in their homeland and to have authority over the Japanese. Japan would still be Japan and belong to Japan. England and many European countries are gradually being colonised by the very people they colonised in the days of Empires. There is a process of reversed colonisation in Europe.
Kopi Level - Green
VEP – The most expensive ERPs
Singapore govt decided to raise vehicle entry permit fees for vehicles
coming in from Malaysia. Easy revenue! What’s wrong with collecting more
money? Malaysia also agrees and decides to raise fees for vehicles
going through Malaysia, in and out. Both govts are now very happy as
they will be the winners, collecting more money for the coffers. Some
say it is a tit for tat reaction by Malaysia. And to be one up on
Singapore, it is raising toll fees for vehicles entering and exiting
Malaysia as well. Singapore govt responded by saying it will match
whatever increases the Malaysians will imposed. Tit for tat?
Who would be unhappy, the commercial vehicles that have no choice but to go in and out of both countries. The cost will just go up. The visitors, the tourists from both sides would also have to pay more. The workers working in both sides of the causeway would also have to pay more. Then the people from Singapore who have bought homes and living across the causeway would have to pay more too. It will become very unattractive if they have to commute daily to Singapore. The new charges will be quite prohibitive for those who thought the homes were bigger and cheaper.
The bigger picture, Iskandar Economic Zone, all the property developers too, would be affected. The advantages of lower cost over Singapore would be eaten up in no time if fees and taxes keep going up. Those people eyeing properties in Iskandar, or those wanting to relocate their businesses would have to recompute their costs and the comparative advantages.
Actually the commercial vehicles coming into Singapore would not bear the cost. They would simply pass the buck. And many businesses would also do likewise. The main casualties would be the developers and the Iskandar project. Would investors get cold feet, would potential property buyers get cold feet knowing that out of the blue some rules will change against their favour?
On Singapore’s side, the masses would be the one paying for the VEP hike and toll fees. The food, vegetables, fruits and goods coming from Malaysia would just be priced higher. And those who holiday in Malaysia often, or those who went in for their daily shopping, would no longer find it cheap to travel there. Some retail businesses in Johore would be affected for sure.
While everyone would have their pockets affected in one way or another, both the Malaysian and Singapore govts would be the beneficiaries and their coffers fattened. Or is it a conscious decision to reduce the flow of people and goods from both sides? Oh, one positive point, the roads on both sides of the causeway could be freer with less vehicles. And the jams at the Causeway would be relieved.
Looking at it from another angle, it appears that one made the decisions consciously with clear objectives in mind, a decision made using the head. The other made all the decisions with the heart, and not sure what would be achieved and the negative consequences.
Kopi Level - Green
Who would be unhappy, the commercial vehicles that have no choice but to go in and out of both countries. The cost will just go up. The visitors, the tourists from both sides would also have to pay more. The workers working in both sides of the causeway would also have to pay more. Then the people from Singapore who have bought homes and living across the causeway would have to pay more too. It will become very unattractive if they have to commute daily to Singapore. The new charges will be quite prohibitive for those who thought the homes were bigger and cheaper.
The bigger picture, Iskandar Economic Zone, all the property developers too, would be affected. The advantages of lower cost over Singapore would be eaten up in no time if fees and taxes keep going up. Those people eyeing properties in Iskandar, or those wanting to relocate their businesses would have to recompute their costs and the comparative advantages.
Actually the commercial vehicles coming into Singapore would not bear the cost. They would simply pass the buck. And many businesses would also do likewise. The main casualties would be the developers and the Iskandar project. Would investors get cold feet, would potential property buyers get cold feet knowing that out of the blue some rules will change against their favour?
On Singapore’s side, the masses would be the one paying for the VEP hike and toll fees. The food, vegetables, fruits and goods coming from Malaysia would just be priced higher. And those who holiday in Malaysia often, or those who went in for their daily shopping, would no longer find it cheap to travel there. Some retail businesses in Johore would be affected for sure.
While everyone would have their pockets affected in one way or another, both the Malaysian and Singapore govts would be the beneficiaries and their coffers fattened. Or is it a conscious decision to reduce the flow of people and goods from both sides? Oh, one positive point, the roads on both sides of the causeway could be freer with less vehicles. And the jams at the Causeway would be relieved.
Looking at it from another angle, it appears that one made the decisions consciously with clear objectives in mind, a decision made using the head. The other made all the decisions with the heart, and not sure what would be achieved and the negative consequences.
Kopi Level - Green
7/28/2014
CPF not the only way in retirement plans
For
those who have been following the public discussion on the CPF schemes and how
it should be tweaked into a better system must be very assured of how good the
improved version 1.01 would be, or must be. The experts have them all worked
out. The new system would be carefully structured and calibrated to apportion
the CPF savings for retirement, for medical, for emergencies, for sudden short
of funds, and for the savers to retire comfortably with no worries.
I
would not hazard to guess how much one would need to put into the CPF to have
peace of mind and no financial worries in the golden years. And it would likely
have to prepare the people to save enough to live till 100 years.
All
this sounds so good. The main assumption is that the people can afford to save
all the money they need to save. Question, what about those who cannot afford
to save? What about those who don’t even have enough to meet their daily needs?
There
is also this tussle between saving enough to retire and live comfortably or a
scheme that treat the CPF as one of many other provisions for old age, and that
a compulsory scheme should only dictate one to provide for the minimum or basic
needs. Even the Medishield Life which I thought was on the right track in
providing for the basic coverage, there are people, rich people, who wanted the
Medishield Life to provide for B1. If this is an upgrade for those who are able
to pay for more, it is fair. If this is used by the rich for their rich nees,
and used as the premise for computing the premiums for all, then the not so
rich would end up sharing the cost of the rich.
I
still think that such compulsory schemes should be designed to cater for the lowest
denominator, the basics while the extras should be an options for those who
demands for them and able to pay for them. Do not make the poor pay for the fancies of
the rich in a public compulsory scheme. And the CPF must not be thinking of
becoming the only means of savings and thus must be loaded up for a comfy
retirement for the rich. People have many other ways to provide for their
retirement and CPF is not the only way. Do not impose a savings schemes on the
people that cannot afford to have one. And do not make the CPF the mother of
all savings schemes to provide for everything under the sky. Not many can
afford such a comprehensive and rich scheme, or need such a scheme. Many would
rely on family support for their golden years and even regard the CPF as superfluous.
There
are many roads leading to Rome.
Kopi Level - Green
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)