‘The Harvard College Open Campus Initiative (HCOCI) announced online
that it has cancelled a talk by Singapore’s most infamous teenager Amos
Yee.
Our upcoming event with Amos Yee has been cancelled. Our apologies to those who were planning to attend.
— HCOCI (@harvardfree) November 12, 2017
This came less than two days after the event was publicised.’ Quoted from the mothership.sg
Many were pleasantly surprised that an esteem top university in the
country where freedom of speech and human rights are sacrosanct in their
constitution was inviting a young rebel to speak on its sacred ground.
The event was scheduled to be held on 13 Nov and with the topic, ‘Jailed
for Dissent’. Amos Yee even went to his facebook to invite people to
attend. It was something that the Americans should be proud of, could be
proud of, till a sudden turn of event.
Amos Yee was invited to speak but was disinvited two days later. This
kind of flip flop only happened in third world countries and pretentious
third world countries trying to pass off as first world countries. But
not America, the USA, the Empire ruling the world.
Even for a tiny little country like Singapore, our govt pride itself as a
country that would not comprise its policies and national interests or
be pressurised to do so by outside parties. And it is unbelieveable to
even harbour the thought that the American govt or Harvard, the seed of
freedom and freedom of expression, is being pressurised to do so, to
turn down a young kid from speaking his peace in the land of freedom.
No, it cannot be. Harvard or the American govt would not be pressurised
to do such a cowardly and shameful thing. It is unimaginable that any
country could have such a great influence to change what Harvard decided
to do. No way. And there is Donald Trump that believes America is great
or he is going to make America great again. He would not tolerate such
an act of cowardice that undermines the greatness of the USA and to make
America small again. I think if Trump comes to know about this, someone
in Harvard or in his govt is going to get grilled.
The only reason I can really think of is that it was all a mistake. There was no such invitation. It was fake news.
What do you think?
11/13/2017
Singapore promoting a cashless and car less society
This cashless society thing is a new thing the govt is promoting.
Actually there is no need to promote this as this has been a reality for
quite some time. Singaporeans' pockets are really and genuinely
cashless especially those living in public housing. Maybe those in
private properties are better off. The cash that Singaporeans have or
used to have has been transferred to their properties and in the CPF.
The little left over that some may still have would be transferred to
the cars they are owning and that effectively made many cashless. So the
govt need not have to sweat the small stuff urging the Singaporeans to
become cashless. It is a fact that many are not talking about.
What many have forgotten is the govt's campaign to promote a car less society. This is an ongoing process and with the proliferation of bicycles all over the island, in the longkangs and bushes, yes bicycles growing in the bushes and floating in the longkangs as well, it must be a sure sign that bicycles have taken over the existence of cars. Bicycles are everywhere, for everyone, supplemented by e scooters and other personal mobile equipment.
And the main reason or justification for a car less society, other than being too expensive, not enough space as space is needed for more foreigners to come here to create jobs, while some say we need 10m population to sustain economic growth, is that we have an efficient public transport system that is the envy of the world. These are the basic assumption and premise for a car less society.
Well, how things have changed or not really. Boon Wan has been quoted in Parliament to have praise how the train services have improved over the years. Here is something quoted in thestatestimesreview.
Just earlier this week in Parliament, Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan attributed government statistics claiming rail reliability has improved three times:
“For our MRT network, it has improved significantly from 133,000 train-km in 2015 to 425,000 train-km this year. For years, it could not even reach 100,000 train-km. That is how far we have come. The improvement is real and significant and is experienced by all the 5 MRT lines, including the oldest North-South and East-West Lines.”
I dunno if anyone disagrees with him but this was what happened last night, 10 Nov, and reported all over the social media. Below is quoted from thestatestimesreview.
'SMRT saw it’s third and fourth breakdown in a week last night (Nov 10) and stopped all East-bound train services on the East-West Line (EWL). From 11.15pm until the end of service at midnight, the disruption happened after the first train fault occurred at Outram Park station.
Shortly after a service train was deployed to push the faulty train, the service train also broke down at Paya Lebar station, and SMRT deployed another service train to push the two faulty trains.'
What is pertinent is the breakdown of a service train that is being used to push the faulty train. A service train is like a backup, like a standby UPS or like the drainage pump in Bishan. The backup train or equipment is supposed to take over or to provide emergency services when needed and must be serviceable at the critical hours, like draining water from the flooded station in Bishan. They must be tested and kept in working condition. Looks like they may want to have a standard SOP to check and maintain these service trains as well.
I digress, didn't I? We are moving towards a car less society and this is only possible if we have an efficient, comfortable and reliable public transport system. It used to be, Boon Wan still believes so. Many commuters are cursing themselves for giving up their cars. One commuter tweeted that he thought he could leave his car at home last night only to be caught in the massive jams due to train faults.
The point is, how is Singapore going to be car less if the public transport system is unreliable and breaking down is the norm? For those heading to catch a flight at Changi and got caught in the jam at Tanah Merah, hope they did manage to get to the airport in time.
What is going on? Oh, they are not issuing more COEs to keep the car population from growing, and there is a reliable alternative public transport for those who could not afford the cars or have given up car ownership.
What many have forgotten is the govt's campaign to promote a car less society. This is an ongoing process and with the proliferation of bicycles all over the island, in the longkangs and bushes, yes bicycles growing in the bushes and floating in the longkangs as well, it must be a sure sign that bicycles have taken over the existence of cars. Bicycles are everywhere, for everyone, supplemented by e scooters and other personal mobile equipment.
And the main reason or justification for a car less society, other than being too expensive, not enough space as space is needed for more foreigners to come here to create jobs, while some say we need 10m population to sustain economic growth, is that we have an efficient public transport system that is the envy of the world. These are the basic assumption and premise for a car less society.
Well, how things have changed or not really. Boon Wan has been quoted in Parliament to have praise how the train services have improved over the years. Here is something quoted in thestatestimesreview.
Just earlier this week in Parliament, Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan attributed government statistics claiming rail reliability has improved three times:
“For our MRT network, it has improved significantly from 133,000 train-km in 2015 to 425,000 train-km this year. For years, it could not even reach 100,000 train-km. That is how far we have come. The improvement is real and significant and is experienced by all the 5 MRT lines, including the oldest North-South and East-West Lines.”
I dunno if anyone disagrees with him but this was what happened last night, 10 Nov, and reported all over the social media. Below is quoted from thestatestimesreview.
'SMRT saw it’s third and fourth breakdown in a week last night (Nov 10) and stopped all East-bound train services on the East-West Line (EWL). From 11.15pm until the end of service at midnight, the disruption happened after the first train fault occurred at Outram Park station.
Shortly after a service train was deployed to push the faulty train, the service train also broke down at Paya Lebar station, and SMRT deployed another service train to push the two faulty trains.'
What is pertinent is the breakdown of a service train that is being used to push the faulty train. A service train is like a backup, like a standby UPS or like the drainage pump in Bishan. The backup train or equipment is supposed to take over or to provide emergency services when needed and must be serviceable at the critical hours, like draining water from the flooded station in Bishan. They must be tested and kept in working condition. Looks like they may want to have a standard SOP to check and maintain these service trains as well.
I digress, didn't I? We are moving towards a car less society and this is only possible if we have an efficient, comfortable and reliable public transport system. It used to be, Boon Wan still believes so. Many commuters are cursing themselves for giving up their cars. One commuter tweeted that he thought he could leave his car at home last night only to be caught in the massive jams due to train faults.
The point is, how is Singapore going to be car less if the public transport system is unreliable and breaking down is the norm? For those heading to catch a flight at Changi and got caught in the jam at Tanah Merah, hope they did manage to get to the airport in time.
What is going on? Oh, they are not issuing more COEs to keep the car population from growing, and there is a reliable alternative public transport for those who could not afford the cars or have given up car ownership.
11/12/2017
The sinister agenda of the TPP
What is the purpose of a regional multi party trade pact for? To promote trade among its participating members. That must be the main objective of such a pact, an entity to benefit all parties economically. The key member of the TPP was the USA with 11 other partners.
When Trump came into office at the White House, he smelt a rat and immediately threw out the TPP into the toilet bowl. He did not want to enter into an agreement that is unfavourable to the Americans, economically. As far as money and business is concerned, Trump knows what he is talking about. He is a shrewd businessman.
His predecessors, the neocons, have a different agenda. Their objective is political, the containment of the growth of China by excluding China from the pact. They were prepared to pay some economic price for political gain for the American Empire.
What is China to a trade pact like the TPP? China is becoming the biggest consumer market in the world with 300 million middle class consumers, the size of the American population. And in another 10 years this would be 600 million. Why would a trade pact deliberately exclude the biggest consumer market in the world?
With the American market in the pact, it still makes some sense. Once the American market is out of the pact, the true economic value of such a pact diminishes instantly. Japan cannot replace the loss of the American market even if it wants to. The Japanese market is too small and the Japanese only buy Japanese goods.
The only reason left to continue this TPP is the sinister political agenda, to isolate China, to gang up against China. Who in the remaining 11 members would want this to continue as the raison d'tre of the TPP? Listen to their narrative and you can smell out the little USAs. On their part they have deliberately excluded China from theTPP. On the other hand they are questioning whether China would seek a China centric trade pact or regional order. This is despite the BRI and AIIB, two Chinese creations that have extended an open arm to all countries, excluding no one, two all embracing and inclusive organisations. The few countries left out are those that chose to ie you know who and their hostile intent towards China.
In a normal and genuine economic trade pact free from political motives, it would be reasonable for the remaining partners of this failed pact to recruit a bigger partner to replace the void left by the Americans. The very fact that some would want to continue in the same form, excluding China, speaks for the intent of some of these members, notably Japan and the little USAs. Japan wants to assume the leadership of this pact without asking the consent of the Australians and Canadians nor the other members. It is a convenient vehicle for the rise of Japan as the new Asia Pacific leader, though a declining one. Some former victims of the Japanese aggression in WW2 have forgotten the massacres and atrocities committed by the Japanese in their countries, against their people, and naively wanted to go to bed with the Japanese.
Would the TPP survive under the leadership of Japan to pit itself against China and deprive its other members from the growing and lucrative China market of 600 million middle class hungry consumers? China is negotiating and promoting the RCEP, another regional trade pact that does not exclude anyone.With its 600m middle class consumers and a market of 1.4b people, would the RCEP dwarf the TPP and turn it into oblivion to the disappoint of the anti China gang that talked inclusivity but practised exclusivity and division?
When Trump came into office at the White House, he smelt a rat and immediately threw out the TPP into the toilet bowl. He did not want to enter into an agreement that is unfavourable to the Americans, economically. As far as money and business is concerned, Trump knows what he is talking about. He is a shrewd businessman.
His predecessors, the neocons, have a different agenda. Their objective is political, the containment of the growth of China by excluding China from the pact. They were prepared to pay some economic price for political gain for the American Empire.
What is China to a trade pact like the TPP? China is becoming the biggest consumer market in the world with 300 million middle class consumers, the size of the American population. And in another 10 years this would be 600 million. Why would a trade pact deliberately exclude the biggest consumer market in the world?
With the American market in the pact, it still makes some sense. Once the American market is out of the pact, the true economic value of such a pact diminishes instantly. Japan cannot replace the loss of the American market even if it wants to. The Japanese market is too small and the Japanese only buy Japanese goods.
The only reason left to continue this TPP is the sinister political agenda, to isolate China, to gang up against China. Who in the remaining 11 members would want this to continue as the raison d'tre of the TPP? Listen to their narrative and you can smell out the little USAs. On their part they have deliberately excluded China from theTPP. On the other hand they are questioning whether China would seek a China centric trade pact or regional order. This is despite the BRI and AIIB, two Chinese creations that have extended an open arm to all countries, excluding no one, two all embracing and inclusive organisations. The few countries left out are those that chose to ie you know who and their hostile intent towards China.
In a normal and genuine economic trade pact free from political motives, it would be reasonable for the remaining partners of this failed pact to recruit a bigger partner to replace the void left by the Americans. The very fact that some would want to continue in the same form, excluding China, speaks for the intent of some of these members, notably Japan and the little USAs. Japan wants to assume the leadership of this pact without asking the consent of the Australians and Canadians nor the other members. It is a convenient vehicle for the rise of Japan as the new Asia Pacific leader, though a declining one. Some former victims of the Japanese aggression in WW2 have forgotten the massacres and atrocities committed by the Japanese in their countries, against their people, and naively wanted to go to bed with the Japanese.
Would the TPP survive under the leadership of Japan to pit itself against China and deprive its other members from the growing and lucrative China market of 600 million middle class hungry consumers? China is negotiating and promoting the RCEP, another regional trade pact that does not exclude anyone.With its 600m middle class consumers and a market of 1.4b people, would the RCEP dwarf the TPP and turn it into oblivion to the disappoint of the anti China gang that talked inclusivity but practised exclusivity and division?
11/11/2017
Liu Thai Ker peddling his 10m pop
After 4 years when he last brooded about the 10m population for
Singapore, Liu Thai Ker is at it again. 10m pop is not only necessary
but good for Singapore. He is not going to give up. In a way I can agree
with him. It is like a multi millionaire saying it is good to be a
billionaire. The only difference is why the need to grow population to
10m and then what if 10m is reached.
Let’s put aside the cost of having a 10m population instead of a 5.5m population. It is like a soldier’s problem versus a major’s problem. One is a soldier’s little problem, the other is a major problem. A 5m pop’s problem is different from a 10m pop’s problem. Don’t just look at economic growth alone. There are plentiful of other issues that would accompany a 10m pop.
Housing a 10m pop is no issue. Like Josephine Teo said, you don’t need much space to have sex. Singaporeans used to squeeze 10 to 15 heads in a small cubicle. Squeezing 10m pop into this piece of rock is no different. Sure can.
Let’s ask this question, why is there a need to grow pop to 10m? Is this the meaning of growth, of existence? Economic growth is not dependent on just population growth. There are many ways to growth without growing population. Growing population to gain economic growth is suicidal, a sure way to self destruction, just like growing the population of mother earth.
Up to a point, more heads in the island is counter productive and destructive, like a family having 2 to 4 children and one with 10 children and still producing. What for? What is the point? What is the meaning of it all? Growing population for the sake of population or the flimsy excuse of economic growth? No population growth means no economic growth?
Heard of one trick pony? Even one trick pony already admits that growing population is easy but no longer workable and not sustainable in the long run.
For those who are commuting by trains, the packed train is getting very uncomfortable and irritable and very stressful. For those who are travelling in the comfort of their limousine, they would not appreciate what life is like squeezing in the packed trains with strangers, some smelly, some foul and some roguish, selfish and hostile.
What do you think?
Let’s put aside the cost of having a 10m population instead of a 5.5m population. It is like a soldier’s problem versus a major’s problem. One is a soldier’s little problem, the other is a major problem. A 5m pop’s problem is different from a 10m pop’s problem. Don’t just look at economic growth alone. There are plentiful of other issues that would accompany a 10m pop.
Housing a 10m pop is no issue. Like Josephine Teo said, you don’t need much space to have sex. Singaporeans used to squeeze 10 to 15 heads in a small cubicle. Squeezing 10m pop into this piece of rock is no different. Sure can.
Let’s ask this question, why is there a need to grow pop to 10m? Is this the meaning of growth, of existence? Economic growth is not dependent on just population growth. There are many ways to growth without growing population. Growing population to gain economic growth is suicidal, a sure way to self destruction, just like growing the population of mother earth.
Up to a point, more heads in the island is counter productive and destructive, like a family having 2 to 4 children and one with 10 children and still producing. What for? What is the point? What is the meaning of it all? Growing population for the sake of population or the flimsy excuse of economic growth? No population growth means no economic growth?
Heard of one trick pony? Even one trick pony already admits that growing population is easy but no longer workable and not sustainable in the long run.
For those who are commuting by trains, the packed train is getting very uncomfortable and irritable and very stressful. For those who are travelling in the comfort of their limousine, they would not appreciate what life is like squeezing in the packed trains with strangers, some smelly, some foul and some roguish, selfish and hostile.
What do you think?
11/10/2017
CPF - Return to basic principles
The CPF scheme was and is a retirement scheme to provide some income for
the retirees when they have reached their retirement age. They should
then be living off their savings in their golden years. The original CPF
scheme ends at 55 when all obligations came to an end when a person
retires, take out his nest egg of a life time savings to decide how he
is going to use his money. This is what a retirement savings scheme
should be.
With longer life expectancy, perhaps it is logical and reasonable to extend the retirement age to 65 and the CPF scheme ending at 65. Under a normal retirement scheme like the original CPF scheme, a person should have enough savings to live the rest of his life of another 15 or 20 years. Under such a situation, the relationship with the CPF in terms of more contribution to the scheme should end. No one should need to contribute further into the CPF scheme as life after 65 can be terminated any moment.
A person should be allowed to withdraw every cent he has in the CPF. No such nonsensical things like minimum sum this and that, no such nonsense as pledging half of his assets to the CPF forever till his death.
However, the CPF scheme should offer to the people options to buy annuities or whatever medical insurance if they wanted to, strictly on a voluntary basis. Anyone can still voluntarily choose to contribute and save more if so desire with the CPF offering them more attractive terms. The important point here, the key principle, is voluntary. No one shall be compelled by legislation to continue to be stuck in the CPF scheme under whatever farcical schemes without their consent after the retirement age say at 65. Period..
A retirement scheme is to provide the savers an opportunity to retire comfortably and financially to live through his golden years. A retirement scheme is not to hold on to his money forever, after his death with many leftover to spare. There would be exceptions when some people may outlive their savings by living to the 90s and 100s. These are rarity. And one must not forget that the CPF is only one source of income to provide for the retirees. Many have other forms of support from families and relatives and other sources of income. The CPF is not the only source of financial security. At the very worst case, there would be a few that the state can pick up the tap. Why not, after living off the cheap loans from the savings of the members over a life time, it is only fair and equitable and ethical that the govt provide this last safety net.
The current CPF has been turned into a little monster when the people contributing to the scheme are held at ransom while others are feeding on the scheme like parasites, depriving the real owners from access to their money. And some happily think this is their money and not the savers money and suka suka would think of ways to take away this money from the real owners by legislation. This is unethical, immoral, and dishonourable. Only very mean people can go on living on the people's life savings as if it is money there up for grabs, with no owners. Anyone who claims that the CPF savings is not the owner’s money has very little conscience of justice and fairness. Anyone going along with this kind of devious thing is just as guilty.
The CPF scheme must have a termination date when all obligations to save would come to an end and anything more should be voluntary. Legally all money saved must be returned to their rightful owners to enjoy their hard earned money saved over a life time. Tentatively under the present life expectancy, a good ending point is age 65 plus or minus a couple of years and nothing more.
People should not disguise themselves as angels to control and keep the money from the CPF members for as long as they want while dipping into the fund for their own benefits.
With longer life expectancy, perhaps it is logical and reasonable to extend the retirement age to 65 and the CPF scheme ending at 65. Under a normal retirement scheme like the original CPF scheme, a person should have enough savings to live the rest of his life of another 15 or 20 years. Under such a situation, the relationship with the CPF in terms of more contribution to the scheme should end. No one should need to contribute further into the CPF scheme as life after 65 can be terminated any moment.
A person should be allowed to withdraw every cent he has in the CPF. No such nonsensical things like minimum sum this and that, no such nonsense as pledging half of his assets to the CPF forever till his death.
However, the CPF scheme should offer to the people options to buy annuities or whatever medical insurance if they wanted to, strictly on a voluntary basis. Anyone can still voluntarily choose to contribute and save more if so desire with the CPF offering them more attractive terms. The important point here, the key principle, is voluntary. No one shall be compelled by legislation to continue to be stuck in the CPF scheme under whatever farcical schemes without their consent after the retirement age say at 65. Period..
A retirement scheme is to provide the savers an opportunity to retire comfortably and financially to live through his golden years. A retirement scheme is not to hold on to his money forever, after his death with many leftover to spare. There would be exceptions when some people may outlive their savings by living to the 90s and 100s. These are rarity. And one must not forget that the CPF is only one source of income to provide for the retirees. Many have other forms of support from families and relatives and other sources of income. The CPF is not the only source of financial security. At the very worst case, there would be a few that the state can pick up the tap. Why not, after living off the cheap loans from the savings of the members over a life time, it is only fair and equitable and ethical that the govt provide this last safety net.
The current CPF has been turned into a little monster when the people contributing to the scheme are held at ransom while others are feeding on the scheme like parasites, depriving the real owners from access to their money. And some happily think this is their money and not the savers money and suka suka would think of ways to take away this money from the real owners by legislation. This is unethical, immoral, and dishonourable. Only very mean people can go on living on the people's life savings as if it is money there up for grabs, with no owners. Anyone who claims that the CPF savings is not the owner’s money has very little conscience of justice and fairness. Anyone going along with this kind of devious thing is just as guilty.
The CPF scheme must have a termination date when all obligations to save would come to an end and anything more should be voluntary. Legally all money saved must be returned to their rightful owners to enjoy their hard earned money saved over a life time. Tentatively under the present life expectancy, a good ending point is age 65 plus or minus a couple of years and nothing more.
People should not disguise themselves as angels to control and keep the money from the CPF members for as long as they want while dipping into the fund for their own benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)