I am not so sure what Warren Fernandez meant by saying that SPH would
hire more foreign correspondents when 130 staff was retrenched as part
of 240 eventually. Was he talking about hiring foreigners to raise the
quality of the paper to compete with other media in Singapore, to boost
readership and sales?
What kind of environment is SPH operating in this little island? What
kind of news would be attractive to the readers? Who forms the majority
of the readership? Would better quality news, like foreign news, or more
EPL news be needed to raise sales and readership?
Is not that SPH operating in a monopolistic environment when the
competitors are also part of SPH? How many foreign media are circulating
in Singapore and what kind of readership, what volume of readership to
they command? Is the foreign readership significant enough to hire
foreign correspondents to win them over to improve sales of local
papers?
By the way, with the tight control over the local media, what kind of
news would appear in the papers or be allowed to be printed to attract
more readers? Does it really make any difference if the
reporters/journalists are foreigners? I am presuming here that foreign
correspondents that SPH is planning to recruit are foreigners. I may be
wrong here. And by the way again, what is the percentage of foreigner
reporters/journalists in SPH and what is the percentage of locals, oops,
I mean Singaporean reporters/journalists?
Should not the SPH be catering to the bulk of the readership whom I
believe are Singaporeans and some PRs? I may be a bit behind time here
knowing that more than half the population are foreigners now and it
would be wise to write things that these foreigners would want to read
even though some have become citizens and PRs. How about a few more
newspapers for China Chinese, India Indians, Pinoys and what have you?
Would these foreigners be interested in reading papers specially written
by their kind and writing news about their homeland?
This is something SPH must be seriously thinking about. More than half
of the population is foreigners. No wonder readership is falling with
local news written by local reporters. Half the population of foreigners
is a big market.
I read in theindependent talking about SPH going regional, to
write about regional news, maybe competing in producing regional papers.
Not sure if this is true. If SPH cannot even compete and be successful
with a monopolistic environment in home ground, can it be a success
competing in open seas, unknown territories full of sharks? This kind of
one trick pony thinking is very similar to sending our sacked and
jobless PMETs that could not get jobs in our very own country against
foreigners and expect them to get jobs in the region when every country
is protecting their jobs for their own citizens.
Stupidity has no cure.
PS. In a monopolistic environment, what competition is SPH facing? Got competition meh?
10/25/2017
Trump likes Loong
From the facial expression of Trump in the above pic, it is evident that Trump really liked Hsien Loong. Look at his face carefully, it is like he is saying, 'I like this chap. He knows what I want. He is so sweet.'
Photo credit to the statestimesreview and the Straits Times. I copied from the former site. Prime Minister Loong invited to the White House
Donald Trump twitted about his meeting with Hsien Loong by calling him
Prime Minister Loong. For other Prime Minister or ministers to be
misunderstood is quite understandable. Didn’t Trump know that his famous
father is Prime Minister Yew? Oops, I mean Prime Minister Lee. And the
son cannot be Prime Minister Loong but Prime Minister Lee. Is Trump
another hillbilly?
Some Singaporeans tried to explain this stupidity or ignorance to Trump by adding in their two cents worth of stupidity. They told Trump that Hsien Loong’s last name is Lee. What? What is that? When was Hsien Loong’s last name Lee? Are they telling Trump that Hsien Loong’s name is Hsien Loong Lee?
For goodness sake, Lee is the first name of Hsien Loong and the first name is the family name. The western convention of first name and last name do not have the same meaning as a Chinese name. The Chinese write their family name first. Their second and last names are their individual name. The last name of a Chinese is not his family name, stupid. Of course this may be true if he is a banana and wrote his name as Banana Tan or Papaya Lee.
There is no need to change the convention of how a Chinese name is written to fit into the western convention. Any westerner that has met up with a Chinese would know the difference, or at the most make the mistake once. It is not that hard to understand this little cultural difference. No need super intelligence to know this.
By the way, President Donald, did you get it? It is Prime Minister Lee. Don’t you remember his father used to visit the US and even addressed the two Houses? And his name, Lee… Kuan Yew. Please don’t tell Hsien Loong that you have met Prime Minister Yew, his father. It is not very nice. George Bush Jr could do better than that. Trump could not be pretending that he is another George Bush right?
Some Singaporeans tried to explain this stupidity or ignorance to Trump by adding in their two cents worth of stupidity. They told Trump that Hsien Loong’s last name is Lee. What? What is that? When was Hsien Loong’s last name Lee? Are they telling Trump that Hsien Loong’s name is Hsien Loong Lee?
For goodness sake, Lee is the first name of Hsien Loong and the first name is the family name. The western convention of first name and last name do not have the same meaning as a Chinese name. The Chinese write their family name first. Their second and last names are their individual name. The last name of a Chinese is not his family name, stupid. Of course this may be true if he is a banana and wrote his name as Banana Tan or Papaya Lee.
There is no need to change the convention of how a Chinese name is written to fit into the western convention. Any westerner that has met up with a Chinese would know the difference, or at the most make the mistake once. It is not that hard to understand this little cultural difference. No need super intelligence to know this.
By the way, President Donald, did you get it? It is Prime Minister Lee. Don’t you remember his father used to visit the US and even addressed the two Houses? And his name, Lee… Kuan Yew. Please don’t tell Hsien Loong that you have met Prime Minister Yew, his father. It is not very nice. George Bush Jr could do better than that. Trump could not be pretending that he is another George Bush right?
10/24/2017
CPF - Do you want your money back? Act now
CPF – An unending scheme that was meant to end at 55
A great saving scheme for retirement has now been turned into a nightmare for many hapless Singaporeans. They entered this compulsory scheme with the promise of getting their life savings back at 55. Without their permission and consent, many outrageous legislations have been introduced to hold back their money till eternity without having a say or a chance to say no or to opt out from it by the most honorable govt run by the most righteous and honorable men and women elected by the people to look after their interests and to protect their interests.
In the case of the CPF, many do not see their interests being protected but eroded by the very people they elected to protect them. Many want their life savings back but their voices were drown in the wilderness. Their elected representatives refused to hear them or to represent them. Instead their elected representatives participated in the horrendous schemes to hold back the money from them at 55. Now this scheme, instead of terminating at the age of 55, would only end when they die. Oops, not really the case. In some circumstances the scheme or the money would continue to be locked up in the CPF, transferred into the accounts of their beneficiaries and could go on and on, never ending.
What kind of monstrous scheme has this life saving scheme for retirement turned into? You ask me. Do you want it to be this way, without your consent, to becoming a money eating monster that eats away your life savings? Compulsory purchase of life insurance scheme, compulsory purchase of medical insurance scheme, and aka datang, or brooding, compulsory schemes for the seniors.
Take the case of the money that is to be pledged against the CPF you withdrawn, your own money, to purchase properties. Not only that you have to pay interest for borrowing your money, you would have to cough up more money to return to the CPF even if you are 100 or 200 years old or more if you have not met the minimum sum stipulated. Should not such pledges be terminated once a person reached the age to withdraw his CPF savings? There is no provision to end the pledging scheme. By right one’s obligation to contribute to the CPF should end at 55 and everything squares of as that is the age when one should be withdrawing his savings from the CPF. But now, when you sell your property, you must pay back to the CPF the money you borrowed from your own savings, plus interests, with no time frame in sight, with the conditions set for the minimum sum. Why like that?
What kind of fucking nonsense is this? Return our money. We want our money back.
Lim Tean and Philip Ang are risking themselves to fight for you, on your behalf to take back your money. The hope for success is very small, because the people you elected to protect your money would not be protecting you and your money but fighting against this. But don’t give up hope. This is your only chance to take back your money.
We must all do our part. This is what Philip Ang and Lim Tean expects from you, a small contribution to the huge legal fees that would be needed to fight this case legally. The details are a work in progress. Everything must start with a small step, a first step. Philip Ang wrote this, posted in TRE,
‘CPF members (non members are also welcomed) who wish to right this sorry state of affairs should contribute and no freeloading, please. Even if 20% of members contribute $10 each, this will be more than sufficient.
Our present priority is to create more awareness and raise sufficient funds before initiating action.
Lim Tean and I have set up a crowdfunding account @ https://www.facebook.com/tean.lim.75. (POSB Savings 198-91842-3) Please keep a record of your transaction as your particulars will be required before the launch of the class-action suit. Unused portion will also be returned, pari passu.’
This is the time to act to do something good for yourself. You need to act to protect your own money. Whatever the amount you can contribute, just send it to them in the above account provided.
This is the first time that Singaporeans are standing up for their own right, fighting for the right to their money, their life savings. Every drop counts. Do something to help yourself. Do it now.
PS. I have sent in my contribution by the time you read this.
A great saving scheme for retirement has now been turned into a nightmare for many hapless Singaporeans. They entered this compulsory scheme with the promise of getting their life savings back at 55. Without their permission and consent, many outrageous legislations have been introduced to hold back their money till eternity without having a say or a chance to say no or to opt out from it by the most honorable govt run by the most righteous and honorable men and women elected by the people to look after their interests and to protect their interests.
In the case of the CPF, many do not see their interests being protected but eroded by the very people they elected to protect them. Many want their life savings back but their voices were drown in the wilderness. Their elected representatives refused to hear them or to represent them. Instead their elected representatives participated in the horrendous schemes to hold back the money from them at 55. Now this scheme, instead of terminating at the age of 55, would only end when they die. Oops, not really the case. In some circumstances the scheme or the money would continue to be locked up in the CPF, transferred into the accounts of their beneficiaries and could go on and on, never ending.
What kind of monstrous scheme has this life saving scheme for retirement turned into? You ask me. Do you want it to be this way, without your consent, to becoming a money eating monster that eats away your life savings? Compulsory purchase of life insurance scheme, compulsory purchase of medical insurance scheme, and aka datang, or brooding, compulsory schemes for the seniors.
Take the case of the money that is to be pledged against the CPF you withdrawn, your own money, to purchase properties. Not only that you have to pay interest for borrowing your money, you would have to cough up more money to return to the CPF even if you are 100 or 200 years old or more if you have not met the minimum sum stipulated. Should not such pledges be terminated once a person reached the age to withdraw his CPF savings? There is no provision to end the pledging scheme. By right one’s obligation to contribute to the CPF should end at 55 and everything squares of as that is the age when one should be withdrawing his savings from the CPF. But now, when you sell your property, you must pay back to the CPF the money you borrowed from your own savings, plus interests, with no time frame in sight, with the conditions set for the minimum sum. Why like that?
What kind of fucking nonsense is this? Return our money. We want our money back.
Lim Tean and Philip Ang are risking themselves to fight for you, on your behalf to take back your money. The hope for success is very small, because the people you elected to protect your money would not be protecting you and your money but fighting against this. But don’t give up hope. This is your only chance to take back your money.
We must all do our part. This is what Philip Ang and Lim Tean expects from you, a small contribution to the huge legal fees that would be needed to fight this case legally. The details are a work in progress. Everything must start with a small step, a first step. Philip Ang wrote this, posted in TRE,
‘CPF members (non members are also welcomed) who wish to right this sorry state of affairs should contribute and no freeloading, please. Even if 20% of members contribute $10 each, this will be more than sufficient.
Our present priority is to create more awareness and raise sufficient funds before initiating action.
Lim Tean and I have set up a crowdfunding account @ https://www.facebook.com/tean.lim.75. (POSB Savings 198-91842-3) Please keep a record of your transaction as your particulars will be required before the launch of the class-action suit. Unused portion will also be returned, pari passu.’
This is the time to act to do something good for yourself. You need to act to protect your own money. Whatever the amount you can contribute, just send it to them in the above account provided.
This is the first time that Singaporeans are standing up for their own right, fighting for the right to their money, their life savings. Every drop counts. Do something to help yourself. Do it now.
PS. I have sent in my contribution by the time you read this.
10/23/2017
Han Fook Kwang - A happier story to population woes
I just want to quote this from Han Fook Kwang's article on the above.
'For the glass half-empty brigade, they all add up to a future Singapore
that is shrinking and ageing and so will be increasingly reliant on new
citizens, permanent residents and foreigners to make up the shortfall.
This sobering view is the dominant narrative whenever Singapore's
population numbers are discussed.
So, what's the glass half-full version of the story?
Interestingly, it also borrows from economic theory.
Experts say there is a demographic dividend which countries reap when they
bring down their birth and death rates. With smaller families and fewer
young children to feed, more resources can be deployed to each individual,
resulting in better educated and more productive workers. Smaller families
also mean greater opportunities for women to work.
The result? High economic growth, provided, of course, the right social and
economic polices are implemented. In fact, the theory is that after this
round of benefits from smaller families, there is a second round to be
enjoyed when significant numbers retire with savings and assets that can be
invested to produce more growth....'
I must say that the experts that thought of reaping rewards from no
population growth really have no intellectual depth. How can there be
economic growth when there is no population growth? This is outrageous
thinking according to the one trick ponies. You want economic growth, then
you must accept population growth. And Singapore can only continue to grow
with growing the population to 10m. But such one pony theory for stopping
the story at 10m is as far as their intellectual depth would go. For they
presumed that once 10m is reached, the story would end. No need to have
more economic growth, no need more population growth. To them it is a
static thing, with a good ending when 10m is attained.
While in the process of growing the population to 10m it is so easy to
stuff them in high rise housing blocks. But what would happen if they leave
their homes, all 10m of them? Now with half that population everything is
running to a stand still. What about more schools, hospitals, recreation
facilities, transportation network, jobs, water, energy, food, social
security etc etc. So easy to grow population to 10m and everything will
take care of itself meh?
Sorry, my intellectual depth also limited and cannot offer any solution to
a 10m population and when 10m is reached, and if the people want more
economic growth, the 10m would become 20m and on and on to 100m or else how
to sustain economic growth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)