Haze - Time for Singapore to punch above its weight

''Asked about the complaints from Singapore, Jusuf only said, "It is up to them to complain. Whom are they going to complain to? Are they going to complain to the wind?"'

This is what Jusuf Kalla, the Vice President of Indonesia said about the haze over Singapore. Basically what he was saying is that Singapore got to live with the haze come what may. Indonesia already done its best and Indonesia cannot change the direction of the wind. What about cutting down on the number of cut and burn incidents? We are trying our best, so don't expect too much and don't push too hard.

Now the ball is squarely in the Singapore court. The haze is Singapore's problems. Complain as much as you want, the Indonesians would not be listening and don't try to go to them with your complaints. Just deal with it or live with it. So, how is Singapore going to deal with it or live with it? Or would Singapore try to punch above its weight and stare squarely into the eyes of the Indonesians, without blinking, and the haze will go away, with the Indonesians hurriedly trying to put them down?

Indonesia does not know that our PM was specially invited to the White House for dinner and the images sent all over for the whole world to see. What is the message? Want to act tough with Singapore? See who is behind Singapore?

Ok, what's next Singapore? Who shall we send to Jakarta, Vivian, Chan Chun Sing or Masagoes? Doing nothing means we will have to live with the haze. Complaining into the air is no use. Did we get the message from Indonesia?

Amos Yee representing himself in court

I just can’t imagine how the proceedings will go when Amos Yee defends himself in court without a lawyer but Amos in person. And he has requested that the witnesses testify orally instead of in writing. Oral presentation is Amos’ forte. It is like Amos in Parliament challenging the MPs who could only make their cases in writings and to read from scripts.

Let’s try to imagine how someone like Amos, but not Amos, would conduct himself in court.  Let’s call this fictional character Ah Mok. 

Ah Mok said: ‘Ok, you motherfucker, you said your Dog is so sensitive and is offended by what I said. Now prove it to me, show me that your Dog is offended. You see my two fingers pointing to your Dog? See, look at your Dog, how is it offended? Where is it, come on, show me that your Dog is angry, you dumb twit…. I need empirical evidence, facts man, not what you think or what you believe. In a court you must have solid hard evidence to state your case. Where is your hard evidence?’

Judge cut him, ‘Ah Mok, mind your language, this is my court. If you don’t respect the witnesses never mind, but you must respect me. I am the judge here.’

Ah Mok: ‘Oh shut up old man, I am cross examining the witness. I am no learned counsel and this is how I speak. Can, cannot? Never mind, you sit there and listen while I shack the witnesses, one at a time.’

The UN Special Representative on freedom of opinion and expression chipped in. ‘Your honour, please allow Ah Mok to exercise his freedom of speech so that he can defend himself against the charges.’

Ah Mok: ‘And you there, the one hiding behind there, what is your problem? You don’t like me fucking your Dog? Did your Dog mind? Did your Dog say it mind? Tell me what your Dog said, you silly motherfucker.’

Judge could not take it any more. ‘Ok Ah Mok, enough of your vulgarity. Vulgarity is not allowed in my court. If you go on like this I am not going to proceed with the case, you hear me?’

Ah Mok, ‘Yes, I understand you perfectly Mr…. Judge. Do I have to address you as my honour or whatever crap they used to call you in court? I am Amos, I know you don’t like my face, and I don’t dig your protocol. This is me, Ah Mok, flesh and blood, hot bloody blood running through me, no pretences, no hypocrisies. I repeat, I have the right to question my witnesses like all legal counsels do, to threaten, harass and ridicule the witnesses, to make the witnesses look stupid. You cannot object, only the prosecution can object. As the judge you can say sustain or over rule. That is your role. Did I get this right?’

Ah Mok: ‘Now, where was I? Oh you, yes you motherfucker, what is your problem? Come again, look at me, not at the piece of shit in your hand. Talk to me, not read to me….Oh Judge, can you tell the motherfucker to speak up? Can he talk or he can only read from prepared scripts? Who wrote the script for him?’

Someone switched off the light in the court room and everything went dark. Ah Mok screamed, let there be light. And there was light.

Are the appointments of the EP and PM racist in design?

I have noted some discussions in the TRE and some commentators insisting that the design of the election of the PM and the EP was racist in nature, favouring the Chinese community. Is that so? Where did it say so? To some small minds, it is very clear that it is racist, in favour of the Chinese majority.

Let’s look at the appointment of the PM? How does one become a PM here under the PAP? Where is it written that the PM must be a Chinese, in the Constitution or in the PAP manifesto? Come on, there is no such thing. The PAP has its own system of choosing their PM, by the CEC. The PM is elected by the majority of the PAP CEC members.  The PAP does not have a ruling that the election of a PM must be a Chinese. So, what is the fuzz all about?

What about the EP? Where was it stated that the EP must be from the Chinese majority? The EP was elected by the people in a presidential election. Tony Tan was PAP’s chosen candidate for the EP. The PAP can choose anyone from the minorities to be their nominated candidate, like SR Nathan.

But the other three candidates were also Chinese. So, these candidates applied for the position. They submitted their papers, they nominated themselves. There is no law saying a minority candidates cannot nominate themselves for the EP.  But, but the criteria favour the Chinese majority! Who set the criteria? Who agree to the criteria? If stag horns are found on the head of a stag, why blame the stag and accuse the stag of discrimination because a goat only got little horns?

Actually all the talks about changing the rules to ensure a minority candidate is unnecessary. The PAP had done it before by nominating SR Nathan. There is nothing to stop the PAP from nominating Halimah or Tharman as their candidate. The PAP brand will guarantee a win. In the SR Nathan case, no one dared to contest.

Coming back to the wild accusation that the system is discriminatory in favour of the Chinese majority, is it true?  The PAP is now going to redesign the rules and the system to favour a minority candidate. Is the PAP admitting that the rules and system were discriminatory and therefore must be changed?

Is this change progressive or regressive, good for Singapore in the future? Would LKY be turning in his grave that his ideals and concept of meritocracy is going to be dismantled and thrown into the rubbish bin and race will now become a factor in the determination of the EP?  Should our national pledge be torn away, should we rewrite the national pledge and remove the phrase, ‘regardless of race, language and religion’, and put into the constitution that race is a factor in the election of the EP?

I am waiting for the man to jump up from his grave to right the wrong that is being conceived and going to be enshrined in the Constitution. Meritocracy is no longer the core values of this country, race is. Instead of playing down on race and elevating meritocracy, a race neutral concept, this trend is like an about turn on govt policies. When it happens, then the Constitution will become racist.
The first legacy of LKY, meritocracy, is at risk of being dumped.

PS, there is this mischievous commentator in TRE called Harold claiming this,
‘At Independence, the agreement was reached that since it was always going to be more likely than not that the PM of Singapore will be a Chinese, then the President will be from a minority community.

That’s why all the first Presidents were minorities. (And don’t forget that for all the 51 years of our Independence, PMs have ONLY been Chinese.)

It was the PAP government that violated that agreement and convention with the introduction of the EP, much to the delight of racists, as we can see.’

This is a very mischievous and malicious rumour to spread as it would affect the people’s perception of the truth and the credibility of the govt. Let’s see if the govt would let this rumour to continue to float around.

Donald Trump the only sensible man in the West

This is a report from Germany calling for its people to stock up food and basic necessities in case of a catastrophe. What catastrophe, war with Russia?  Read below:

Germany is planning to urge its citizens to stockpile food, water and other supplies in the event of a catastrophe or armed attack.

According to a report by German broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW), citing the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung newspaper, the move would be the first of its kind since the end of the Cold War.

The proposal is reportedly contained in a government civil-defense-strategy document, which says that people should stock 10 days worth of food and a sufficient supply of water, energy, money and medicine that would allow them to stay put long enough for the government to respond.

The mood in Germany has been unsettled recently following a number of horrific incidents. In the latest violence, on July 24, a Syrian suicide bomber injured 15 people at a music festival in the central German town of Ansbach. The same day, a Syrian refugee killed a woman and injured two others with a machete in Reutlingen. Just days previous, an ISIS-inspired attacker was shot dead after stabbing several people on a train in the south of the country.

The huge influx of refugees — Germany accepted more than a million last year — has sparked fears among many Germans that terrorists have entered the country under the guise of seeking asylum.

And they are calling for European govts to take in more refugees knowing what could happen if only a small percentage of the refugees are terrorists in disguise. And many would even call for more refugees to prove that they are not afraid, to prove that they are doing the right thing, to prove that they are simply stupid beyond redemption. This is an inevitable trend of event that would lead to the destruction and an end to the European civilization, the destruction of Europe as a modern, orderly and peaceful place to live and to work in.

Only Donald Trump is sensible enough to know what the hell is going on and how to stop it, to save America.

Bukit Batok does not want to go away

Remember the rats incident? Remember the by election? Now it is about TB and how children in a kindergarten were exposed when a FT teacher has active TB. Active hor, infectious. Now the children had to be screened and for a few to be infected is very likely.

How many more children will be exposed to this almost non existent disease in this island? How widespread or serious is TB in this island today?

With more than 2 million foreigners here, with many now citizens or PRs, what kind of risk are we exposed to? TB is only one such risk. How many other kinds of biological and non biological risks that would have a long term health effect on the population and is this a fair price to pay for the large presence of foreigners from third world countries being invited here?

There is a price to pay for everything. It is not always free for the benefits we are deriving from them. How to vet the 2 million foreigners here? Were they vetted before entry?