7/31/2014
An American experience
This is an often quoted story of why the white Americans would move out of their neighbourhood once a black family moved in. It is stereotyping to a certain extent but it is a general rule other than the exceptions. The value of the properties in the neighbourhood suffered an immediate fall. No white Americans would want to live in a smelly slum, crime infested, and different social behavior or way of life.
The value of a neighbourhood is affected by the people living there. The value of properties in Bukit Timah and Tanglin will plunge if it is turn into a smelly slum akin to the US. The value of all properties in Sin City will fall if 3rd World people flooded the island and make this their home. The Singaporeans will just move out.
And you cannot expect the 3rd World people to retain the character of the island when they are in the majority. When they are small in numbers, they would comply with the current social norms and behavior. Notice the increasing litters, empty beer bottles all over the island? What happened to the clean garden city?
When they take over, their norms and behavior will be the new normal. Go visit their favourite haunts in the islands and feel that you are in their country and ask yourself is this what you want for your Sin City?
Your HDB flats would not be the same when the foreigners and foreign workers moved in. They lived under different norms, different comfort levels, different cleanliness and hygiene standards. The value of the flats in the block will be affected once the foreigners become a majority tenants. It will be like the American neighbourhoods. But they could move out. In Sin City, many could not afford to move out and would have to bear with the new normal brought about by the new comers.
From 3rd World to First World and back. Can we really remain as a 1st World city if half of the people here are from the 3rd World, with 3rd World social habits, cultures, norms and standards? We are even losing our clean and green image and the daft asses are blaming the Singaporeans for it. Progress?
Kopi Level - Green
CPF an asset or liability to the govt?
We have been told that our CPF is part, or a major part, of our national reserves. It must therefore be an asset. As such, it is good to keep growing the reserves with more and more CPF money in it. And as an asset, you don’t have to worry about returning it. Our national reserves cannot be used anyhow right? It would need the President’s approval, if I am not mistaken, to touch our national reserves. So to touch our CPF money, which is part of the reserves, is unthinkable. Can see cannot touch. It is sacred, part of the national reserves. A govt can only spend the surplus revenue it generated.
What if the CPF is a liability to the govt, a borrowed fund that must be returned? If our CPF is a liability, then there would be no incentive to keep it in the reserves but to reduce it when there is a surplus, to reduce the liability. And if it is a liability, the funds managing it must also be thinking about redemption by the members. When CPF members hit 55, they are going to withdraw their CPF savings. But when funds managing the CPF money do not think it is a liability that is subject to withdrawal and redemption, there is no need to ensure that the fund is liquid to meet such requirements. The funds can invest for the long term, and when there is no need to return, and the long term can be forever.
Why is the CPF saving the nation’s reserves when it is the people’s money that must be returned? Is this an international convention, an accounting convention, to regard the people’s savings as national reserves and an asset that does not need to be returned?
Can anyone clarify on these contradictions?
Kopi Level - Green
7/30/2014
Singaporeans should go the dodo way
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)