Belt tightening versus belt loosening

Hsien Loong’s key speech during the National Day Rally was to teach the people how to change their habits to save some money given the high cost of living in this most expensive city in the world. To the masses, it is belt tightening time and this has been going on for the last few decades. Their lives have been a serial of downgrading and downgrading, from the 5Cs to smaller flats or even selling part of their leases, from country clubs to community clubs, from car ownership to riding bicycles, from eating in restaurants to foodcourts to hawker centres. And to make eating in hawker centres more palatable, without being undignified, like the best thing in the world, Singapore is going to apply for UNESCO recognition that hawker centre is Singapore’s treasured way of life.
 
minister has come out in support of this belt tightening exercise. “The Government will do its part – that is our commitment … But at the same time, we hope that people will also think through what they are able to afford and manage and also to make the right choices”: Second Minister for Finance Indranee Rajah on the cost of living in Singapore. Channel NewsAsia
 
On the other side of the rich poor divide, Chok Tong is telling the people that the ministers are underpaid. Is this the first hint that minister’s exorbitant salary, out of this world’s salary, is going to be raised and is he hinting that the ministers are not happy with their high salary? Are the belts of the ministers too tight and need loosening so that they could fatten themselves more? Looking at everyone one them, ruby and oily cheeks, they really look very well fed. And one MP is driving a Bentley, only an MP and can afford the luxury of a Bentley. Still salary not enough?
 
The people are told to tighten their belts and the ministers are thinking of loosening their belts, to consume more with higher salary? We are in it together, in the same boat? Anyone hallucinating?

Crazy Rich Asians - The Awakening

I read some of the reviews about Crazy Rich Asians to find out what people were crazy about. Here are a few paragraphs from a Bourree Lam, she called herself American, about what was so startling to her about this movie. It is about Asian men, that there are Asian men that are really men, just like Joe and John, that can be desirable, and can speak and believe it or not, are human beans on this world. Before this Crazy Rich Asians,  there were no Asian men, only white men. Wow! What a great discovery.

This is a little bit from her article in Yahoo News titled Crazy Ripped Asians.

'This has hardly been the case in America.

Before the 1900s, Asian males were often portrayed as dangerous to Western society. In the era of the Chinese Exclusion Act and Yellow Peril, Asian men were depicted as cartoonishly cold-hearted villains. Anxieties that Asian men may marry white American women led to racist portrayals of Asian men as evil, feminine, and generally undesirable. “The Asian male figure was conjured as an Other who is threatening and dangerous at worst, and distasteful and dismissible at best,” said L.S. Kim, an associate professor of film and digital media at UC Santa Cruz, of that era.... But I posit that there’s one aspect of the movie that we can all agree on: I’m talking about the abs. All one thousand of them.

Serving up male bodies to gawk at is one of the oldest tropes of the rom-com genre. These movies are made for swooning, and swoon we did. Have you ever seen so many Asian Adonises who have misplaced their tops in one movie? Singapore is known for its tropical climate, but is it codified that a man must spend half of his waking hours (and 100% of his sleeping ones) airing out his upper half?

It’s not superficial, either. This display of Asian male beauty is fighting a decades-old narrative in America, a racist one where Asian male bodies were either portrayed as made for kung-fu or made for being laughed at. If you know the history, you might end seeing the abs in Crazy Rich Asians in a slightly sharper light.'

This Bourree Lam must have swooned over the male Asian bodies that she had never seen before all her adult life. Is she 25 or 35? She could not be older as she remembered this western bias existed only for decades, not centuries. Where had she been? Oh in America of course, she is American. And there were no Asian men in America, or at least in her life or in her association. 

This is not the only awakening. Since Bruce Lee kicked open the white men's only door of Hollywood nothing really happened after that. Perhaps if Bruce Lee could carry on kicking for a few more years, think would have changed a bit more. It was like they repaired and put back the broken white men's door after Bruce Lee left.

It seemed that every writer or actor/actress, I mean of Asian origin has suddenly woken up to the fact that there were no Asians in Hollywood other than the stereotyped, very nerdy, no character, the cartoons, or kung fu fighters. They have awakened, they have removed their blinkers, that Asians are also human beans but strangely non existence in Hollywood or in the USA!

Wow, unbelieveable. This is a great scientific discovery since they discovered the theory of gravity or homo sapien originated from apes. Now every Asian actor/actress is standing up and asking the same question that they did not think should be asked in the world of movie making.  But this is the world of the bananas. They did not know the existence of Bollywood and the movie world of Hongkong, Taiwan and now China. These movie industries don't exist or don't count. Their only world of make belief is the Hollywood stereotyped of James Bond, Tom Cruise, and who else, their white gods. And they were comfortable living in this world of white gods and nothing else. Now why would Hollywood want to cast Asians when their stories are western and catering to a western audience?

This is perhaps the greatest happenings of Crazy Rich Asians, the awakening of the bananas, that before this movie, they don't exist and they did not know. Now they know. But unfortunately this is going to be another flash in the pan incident and would be over when the light is out.

Electricity tariff in Singapore versus oil price

Hsien Loong startled the audience of his National Day speech asking the people to ‘kee chiu’ if they think electricity tariff is lower than 10 years ago. Many got it wrong, believing that electricity today is higher instead of lower. He then showed two graphs, one on electricity tariff and another on oil price to show the complementarity of the movements of the two items. When oil price is up, tariff is up. The audience was astonished that electricity price today was lower than 10 years ago. Hsien Loong supplement his discovery with this statement:

‘”Describing the issue of electricity tariffs as “more complicated”, he noted that the current rate of 23.65 cents/kwh is more affordable than it was in the third quarter of 2008 at 25.07 cents/kwh.

’––Singapore’s electricity tariffs are dependent on the fluctuations in oil prices as the nation uses natural gas – all imported – to generate almost all of its electricity, he explained.’  Yahoo News

Many in the audience or watching the TV must be amazed for seeing that electricity tariff has actually gone down and their perception was wrong, that electricity price is high.  Here are the two charts.

For flashing the two charts in a speech and giving the audience very little time to ponder and understand what they were shown is a clever way of getting one’s point across. Now we have a bit more time reading the charts and see what they meant and whether they really made sense. Yes, the tariff is lower today, 23.65 cents against 25.07 cents. What about the relative oil prices for the respective time? I could not figure out the scale of the above oil price chart. To me the numbers were funny. Below is a 10 year oil price chart by Macrotrends.net. Oil price peaked in 2008 to US$140 per barrel and hit a low of US$30 in 2009 and below US$30 in 2015.

Oil price in 2008 was $140 per barrel against $60 per barrel today. If electricity tariff is to fluctuate in sync with oil price, when the oil price is halved, should not the electricity tariff be halved as well or somewhere near there? The 23.65/25.07 numbers showed that electricity tariff has fallen by 1.42 cents or 5.66%! Should it not be bigger for the 80/140 or 57%  difference in price of oil? The latter is the percentage of change  when oil price fell from $140 to $60.

Yes they both swing in the same direction but the quantum is vastly different. Does it make sense that one changed by 57% and one by 1.42%?

What is the problem with the numbers? What is the problem with the charts? Should the people be happy that electricity prices have fallen by 1.42%? Or should it go down by a bigger percentage? Why is the fall so miniscule?

The above chart shows the prices of oil over the last 10 years. The chart Hsien Loong presented showed the prices of electricity of the same period but the fluctuation is not more than 5 cents each way.

Mahathir just gives Singapore a second chance

Mahathir has cancelled the US$20b East Coast HSR in Malaysia. Without this rail link, the super port in Malacca and the ports on the east coast would become white elephants and likely to be cold storage. The whole concept of these two mega projects is to make Malaysia the gateway to China and Europe by high speed train. Now the train would stop in Thailand, likely at the Isthmus of Kra. Cancelling the East Coast HSR would mean cancelling the port projects on both sides of peninsula Malaysia as well. All other projects linked to the BRI would become meaningless and likely to end abruptly. The Kra Canal project would take precedence now for China to by pass the Straits of Malacca and the port of Singapore.

The Kra Canal project is very costly and would take years to contruct and build and is a project that China would not want to commit if given a choice. This is a window of opportunity for Singapore to reposition itself as a major shipping node in the BRI. As far as Malaysia is concerned, even though Mahathir said he supports the BRI, Malaysia is out of the game. Whether Singapore can ease its way into the vacuum left by Malaysia would depend on what the Singapore govt is going to do to assure China that its interests would not be compromised by the American military presence in Singapore.

Here comes the tricky question. What is Singapore going to do to balance the American presence in the city state that virtually controls the shipping through the Malacca Strait? Two obvious choice, by allowing the Americans to continue to be in the island and also allow the Chinese to have similar access for their warships under the same terms as the Americans, nothing more nothing less. Another option is to ask the Americans to vacate Changi which is going to be a tough ride. Once in, the Americans would not be easy to leave this strategic little corner, just like their presence in Japan, South Korea and Iraq. They would not leave without a fight.

The future of Tuas mega port and Singapore's shipping and logistic industry would depend on how Singapore plays its cards. China has other options other than the Kra Canal. Qwadar in Pakistan and Myanmar ports would be fully developed to take on the role of channelling oil from the Middle East to China, by passing the Straits of Malacca if all else failed. Singapore must not think that China has no where else to go but come begging to use Tuas. This is a great opportunity that Singapore must seize and take full advantage of before Mahathir knows what he is doing and change his mind or step down and Anwar takes over to revive a dying Malaysian economy that is being bypassed by China's BRI.

For the moment Mahathir has chosen to go it alone. If Singapore is smart, it must quickly chope the vacated seat by selling to China all the favourable terms it can offer for Chinese ships to come calling at Tuas. Singapore would not have another chance if this window of opportunity is closed again. And it can close as quickly as it is opened now.

Would Singapore seize the moment and turn it to its favour?

On what ground are the American soldiers in Syria...and Iraq?

WASHINGTON: The United States said Friday it is suspending US$230 million budgeted for stabilisation projects in Syria, citing the aid pledged by other partners in the coalition against the Islamic State group.

'The president has made clear that we are prepared to remain in Syria until the enduring defeat of (IS), and we remain focused on ensuring the withdrawal of Iranian forces and their proxies," she said....

Brett McGurk, the special White House envoy to the coalition against IS, said the militant group has been cleared from some 99 per cent of its former territory in Syria and that preparations for the final phase of the campaign are being made.

He said stabilisation operations involving demining, restoration of water and power supplies and other basic needs are well underway in recaptured areas....

"We are focused on stabilisation, getting people back to their homes," McGurk said....' Channel News Asia

From the above reports, how many of you noticed the hypocrisy and evilness of the Americans in their undeclared war in Syria, the occupation of Syrian territories by American soldiers and the red herring that they are going to stabilise and restore facillities in Syria...without having to ask the Syrian Govt and people.  They talked as if Syria is a state of the USA and they can do whatever they like in that country.

Before we get misled by this American rhetoric one must remember who planted the ghost of IS in Syria and used it as an excuse to send troops into Syria to fight IS and terrorism, without the consent or invitation of the Syrian Govt?  And after destroying 90 percent of Syria with their unrestrained bombings, they are now telling the world that they are the white knights, the angels that are there to stabilise and rebuild Syria, the country they bombed to Stone Age by inserting IS terrorists into Syria.

Get it? See how the evil and wicked schemes of the Americans are being played up in Syria and the rest of the Arab and African countries, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, to justify their military invasion of these countries, unilaterally, as the Evil Empire that rules over these countries.This is now a text book formula for American invasion of independent countries by inserting their IS terrorists and insurgents to create some kind of fear and terrorist acts. Then they will come marching in and occupy the countries so decided by them.

The Americans are in these countries not to fight IS or terrorists but to conduct regime change, to dethrone the legitimate govt of the countries and install their puppets to take over the countries.

And you have some European leaders crying crocodile tears over Syria and other Arab countries. Read this, also reported in CNA.

'PARIS: French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel voiced concern on Friday (Aug 17) about the humanitarian situation in the rebel-held Syrian region of Idlib, which is shaping up be the country's next big battleground....

They also called for an "inclusive political process to allow lasting peace in the region".'

In the first place there was peace in Syria and other Arab countries like Iraq and Libya. It is the Americans and the Europeans, former colonial masters, that started the wars in these countries.  They started the wars, bombed and burnt down the countries and now calling for peace. What the fuck. And no one is questioning them for their irresponsible acts and crimes against humanity in these Arab countries.

They are the good guys!!!!

Latest, the Americans announced that they would be in Iraq for as long as they are needed. Who decides that? The Americans of course. But Iraq is an independent country, not a state of the USA. Not any more. After using the excuse of WMD to invade Iraq, Iraq is now a part of the American Empire. The Iraqis have lost their territorial sovereignty. The Americans are their new masters.