Simple joy of being grandpa

Watching grandchildren growing up happily in their innocence is a simple contentment to many grandparents at a time like welcoming the new year.

This is one of the things that I do with my camera, to capture the days when the grandchildren are growing up.

Clash, Competition, Cooperation and Collusion of Civilisation

The 21^st Century is setting a new trend in global competition for development, growth and prosperity of people and nations. Up till the 20^th Century, nations triumphed and prospered by war, conquest, exploitation and domination over countries and people. Till the very end of the 20^th Century, the mindset and strategies of western powers continued to be bogged down by the past, to dominate, control and rule the world for their own well being. The Cold War might be over but divide and rule, and containment as a policy for world supremacy remains the main policy thrust of the Americans, supported by their western allies.

The rise of China as an economic and military super power and expected to give the Americans a run for their money for pole position is vindication that the containment policy is not working, or not effective. China is on a roll despite all the obstacles placed on its path, trade sanctions, trade barriers, blockages, threats, potholes and many other methods that were not seen or spoken in the open. China and the US, representing the East versus West models for achieving economic growth and prosperity are in direct competition and also cooperation are being watched closely by the rest of the world.

There are several distinct characteristics to the two models. The American model features military power, use of power and dominance, and a complex polity of diverse people, culture and ideas, democracy and capitalism. The Chinese model is one of economic growth with equality among nations, big and small as its foundation, a homogenous people in a sense, and a new concoction of communism and capitalism in various degrees of combination. The US, to some extent Europe, is the representative of the 20^th Century western model for growth and development. From the East, China, South Korea, Taiwan and Hongkong, derived their growth from primarily a relatively more homogenous society but a mixed of capitalism, democracy and authoritarian govt model.

The West, particularly the US, became rich and powerful riding on conquest and exploitation of people and countries. The Europeans took everything from the American natives forcefully, terminating them, and exploited the labour of Africa and other parts of the world, and their natural resources to build the foundation for a prosperous country. It then benefited from a mix pot of immigrants mainly from Europe to drive the growth engines under a democratic system of govt and a laissez fair economy under capitalism.

The prosperity of China, South Korea, Taiwan and Hongkong was achieved without resorting to conquest and exploitation of other countries and people. They were the victims of exploitation and conquest but grew to what they are today, through the industry and drive of their own people, and from borrowing the economic models of growth from the West. There was an absence of power and sphere of influence by military means. They prosper today without robbing the colonies or other country’s wealth and resources.

Which of these two economic systems would emerge as the role model for the 21^st Century? A country of diverse people and ideas, economic and individual freedom, democracy and capitalism or a homogenous society, high involvement of the state, and a democracy that is authoritarian in nature unlike the western model, but without resorting to military power and conquest?  The shining model of national wealth in Europe is taking a hit without the free resources and people for exploitation from the colonies. Europe is in decline, in rapid decline when left to depend on their own limited resources and ingenuity, without conquest and colonisation. Europe is expending its past accumulated wealth seized from their colonies fast, and must look for a new economic and political order to revive its wealth and glorious past. The Americans are slowing down and seeing China and eastern countries making a bid to over take them in all fields, without the use of the gun.

What would the 21^st Century turn out to be when countries and civilisation compete and cooperate in a highly complex inter related and inter dependent shrinking world when all economic and human activities are tightly intertwined, where there is intense competition but demanding cooperation as necessary for growth? Both worlds, and all the countries, need each other to grow and prosper together. The USA and China is a very good example of interdependence even as they tried to compete and try to undermine the advantages and benefits of the other for a bigger piece of the pie.

Would the gun be used to scuttle the peace and development in this century when one party feels that it is unable to compete fairly, with ingenuity and industry of its people and system for a better life for its people? Would the mix match potpourri of the US perform better than the homogenous economies of the East, including Japan? Is war the necessary and inevitable solution to the well being of civilisation like in the 20^th Century?

Happy Chinese New Year 恭喜发财

Happy Chinese New Year to everyone.

恭喜发财 万事如意 身体健康

Redbean

Another foreign rogue beat up a Singaporean youth

Another huge foreign bully, a Briton named Alan Benjamin Maybury, was charged in court yesterday for punching a teenage driver 3 times and abusing him. The youth suffered mild swelling and a cut. The cause of the incident was an accident involving the youth’s car and the taxi the rogue foreigner was in.
 
The beating of locals appears to be a habit by the burly and big foreigners against the meek and small built locals. The safety of locals is increasingly being threatened in this otherwise reputed safe city state for foreigners. It is the locals that are getting the beating by the foreigners.
 
Would the govt act more firmly against these foreign rogues to protect the safety of the citizens? Or would this rogue get away with a slap on the wrist? When dealing with violent rogues, it is better to return them the same medicine. I would even recommend public whipping in Raffles Place or Hong Lim Park to make a statement that beating locals is not acceptable and cannot be tolerated. These rogues must be made an example off, like the Japanese hanging chopped heads to frighten the locals. There is an urgent clear and present danger against the locals and it must be stopped once for all. Make it know to all the foreign rogues that beating locals will be harshly dealt with, like hangings for drug trafficking.
 
This cannot go on like this. The situation demands action from the govt to protect its meek and timid citizens. But to assure the foreign darlings that we love them the govt can make a tender loving speech to assure them that the unconditional love for foreigners is still there in case they threaten to move out of this island and turn it into a 3rd world slum. Must handle the foreign darlings with extra sensitive care to make them feel secure, never mind the locals are feeling insecure.
 
Just cannot ‘tahan’ seeing locals being bullied and bashed by rogue foreigners. Would any MPs say something about these rogues or would they say the Sinkies deserved the beating?

AHPETC – Assumptions, assumptions and more assumptions

I mentioned earlier that I did not read the copious text unloaded by the ST on the AHPETC saga. The persistent condemnation to the point of outrage, appearing daily, forced me to take a closer look at what the case was all about. I pulled out Today’s front page article on Friday 13 titled “AHPETC actions ‘unlawful’” with a subheading ‘Public monies have been lost, minister charges’ for a second look.
 
I am just a layman that at best has a bit of common sense and hopefully can understand what a top notch legal mind was talking about without being confused or misunderstanding him, and hopefully agreeing with him. The paper said he had 5 major lapses to flog but focused mainly on ‘related party transactions’ of AHPETC. The beef is that 4 senior staff with closed relationship were appointed to manage the Town Council and they could approve each other’s claims for payment, like writing their own checks. And there were over charging of S&CC fees amounting to taking money from the common people to pay their friends, ie benefitting their friends.
 
Now what is this ‘unlawful’ charge about? To my understanding there must be a law that is broken. Otherwise how can it be unlawful? What law has been broken? Is it about appointing kaki lang to oversee each other resulting in conflict of interest and possible fraud? I am not sure if there is a law that says an organization cannot appoint the father as Chairman, son as CEO and wife as GM or Finance Director. Is there? I am very sure in family businesses this is often the practice. I am not sure if there is a law for public listed companies on this or in the civil service. I am sure it is frown upon, undesirable, unacceptable and maybe there will be company policies against it. That did not make it unlawful right? To be unlawful, there must be a law that forbids it right, learned counsels? Can someone help me on this? I am cocksure that if it is my grandfather’s company, I will appoint anyone to any position I like and have them sign and approve each other’s pay check and you can’t do anything about it. I like what. Cannot meh?
 
The other issue that Shanmugam was talking about is lost of money, lost of a lot of money. The money were collected from common folks, hard earned money, like the CPF savings, dunno which one is more serious, but being used to pay friends or benefitting friends. Let me explain the simple part first. Many ex Ministers and MPs were appointed to high offices and drawing big fat salaries. Could they fall under the same category as paying friends and benefitting friends, or ex Ministers and MPs are not friends but ex colleagues in political office? Not the same meh?
 
My point is that there is nothing wrong with such appointments, even with high pays if the friends, oops, I meant ex colleagues, can do the job well. Tiok boh? So, can I say there is nothing wrong to pay friends high salaries and benefitting them if the job is well done, or is done? Those people appointed chairman and directors here and there are not friends meh? They never benefited meh?
 
I think what is important is money lost. How much is lost, can anyone prove it? I have heard that a lot of money was lost but no numbers being given. But that is beside the point. The most important thing must be the intent or wrongful act like theft or fraud. In the commercial sector, people can lose billions by making bad or wrong investment decisions with no bad intent, with no intent to fraud. And everyone just squeezed their balls and could not do anything about the big losses. Who would be complaining except the rightful owners of the money, the minority shareholders right? There is nothing wrong mah. There must be intent to cheat, to fraud, to steal, according to the law to be unlawful, to be a crime. Has anyone proved any intent in the AHPETC case, or it is assumed? Can one just go around assuming and cut off people’s head or demanding for a pound of flesh on assumptions?
 
A family business with son or wife claiming millions and father happily signing it is quite common as they trusted each other, and they know that they are absolutely honest people, family business what, so what is wrong? As long as there is trust and the trust is not broken, husband and wife signing for each other cannot meh? Where is the law to say cannot? If got law say cannot, then cannot lah, then it will be unlawful. Nothing more to say leow. Like this I sure can understand.
 
Ok, the structure is wrong, according to Shanmugam no town councilor who knew this should approve the structure. Yes, yes. It is not a good practice. But is it against the law, against Town Council regulations? If got such law or Town Council regulations, then surely must be breach of fiduciary duties. Got or not?
 
Now the tricky part, according to Shanmugam, the structure or ‘arrangement was designed. FMSS was a convenient vehicle to which millions of dollars went from the town council. And another obvious question: Money that went to FMSS – where did it actually go? What happened to it?’ Designed for what? For fraud, to cheat? Let me quote Sylvia Lim, what was Shanmugam ‘insinuating’? I say never mind lah. Prove the guilt first. If not, no need to talk more. Let me try to imagine a group of people huddling in a corner designing a town council structure with the purpose of cheating. It would be good if I have a video recording of it.
 
What happened to the money? You dunno, I dunno. So must be unlawful? What I like is this part quoted by Shanmugam. ‘The law takes an extremely strict view on related party transactions (and) on conflicts of interests. Where contracts have been entered into with related parties in breach of fiduciary duties, the law presumes loss.’ This is a matter of law and the Minister must be right. So those contracts signed between family members must be loss according to the law? Must prove loss or not? This part I dunno.
 
Shanmugam also charged that 4 WP MPs are culpable for allowing related party transactions to happen under their noses. Culpable for losses or for allowing such transactions? What law is broken? ‘If not exposed, the money would not have been repaid,’ said Shanmugam. So there was lost of money and the money repaid. Is my understanding tiok or boh tiok?
 
I dunno whether I am wiser after reading the article or not? Anyone of you getting wiser or smarter? Got law broken or not? Got money lost or not? Got intent to cheat proven or not? How I wish I had completed my law school, then not so blur. Lawful, unlawful, legal, illegal, not legal….not lawful, not lawyer.
 
Oh, one more observation. All the town councils used to charge resident and commercial units different fees, with commercial units paying very much higher S&CC. In 2014 the fees were changed to be the same. As a result, AHPETC ended up charging higher fees for commercial units by not lowering their fees. So they are thus overcharging market rate. Not over billing for sure. Is this a crime? The cost of operation of different town councils cannot all be the same right? And being new and inexperience, being ignorant, did not know other town councils have lowered their fees, so it is unlawful, overcharging? Tiok boh? Got shadow or not? Like that also can be a problem ah? Based on the chart put up by Shanmugam there was a difference. But is that a crime? Is that criminal? Is that cheating, overbilling or overcharging? 

What is wrong with collecting more money? You ask me lah?