The anonymous letter appearing in the New York Times about how the staff
of White House trying to bypass Donald Trump or to block him from
making policies that are detrimental to the Americans gives the
Americans and the world food for thought as to who is running the USA.
If what was reported is true, Trump is a lame duck or at least only able
to do so much and most of the American policies, especially foreign
policies are dictated by his staff against the wishes of Trump.
This speaks clearly why the Americans are putting so much pressure on
North Korea and literally doing things that Trump would not have agreed,
offending the North Koreans by raising sanctions and placing more
unacceptable demands on the North Koreans. Trump is saying and willing
one thing while his staff is doing another.
The reasons for the White House staff to act in the way they are is due
to Trump’s amoral activities and also his incompetence, his
‘impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill informed and occasionally
reckless decisions that have to be walked back.’ What it is saying is
that when there is a rogue President, the staff under him will act
independently to check on the President, to obstruct or hijack the
President’s decision making process, for the good of the USA and the
American people. The President could be the president and continue
ranting and acting wildly, but these would not be allowed to derail
policy making process and bad policies from being implemented.
This is perhaps one of the strongest point in American democracy when
the power of the President is not absolute and good men and women would
stand up to do what is right and good for the country. No rogue
President or head of state could bring down the USA or work against the
interest of the people and country.
How many countries in the world has such a system of checks and balance
on executive power? Of course for such a system to function, there are
conditions and also good people who are brave enough and not beholden to
the President to think critically, logically and independently from the
President. It calls for a lot of guts and conviction to work against
the President to protect the good and interest of people and country.
American is unlikely to have a dictator as his power could easily be
checked. Trump may try to abuse his position of power, but it is not
going to be easy and unrestrained. This is what democracy is all about.
9/10/2018
9/09/2018
Give Mr Bean new life in Red Dot
There was news that Rowan Atkinson was thinking of retiring Mr Bean a few years back. Not sure if this is the end of Mr Bean. During an interview with the Daily Telegraph, he gave this replied. 'Atkinson told the Daily Telegraph's
Review. "Apart from the fact that your physical ability starts to
decline, I also think someone in their 50s being childlike becomes a
little sad. You've got to be careful."' I think this is good advice for anyone above 50 to act childish or talk childishly. Anyway this is not my point. I was thinking of getting Mr Bean to produce a movie on Mas Selamat's childish escape from a high security prison. This movie would endear every Singaporean to it as the memory has been forever etched deeply in the psyche of every Singaporeans that lived through that hilarious episode of our history.
Below is a draft of my script for this movie, titled 'Mr Bean's Escape from Blue House'.
Scene 1. Mr Bean, the terrorist, is happily daydreaming of his success as a terrorist and being rewarded high heavens until the knocking at the door, at 3am woke him up. And a few men in dark glasses, in the wee hours, in dark suit and take him away.
Scene 2. Mr Bean, the terrorist, is taken on a tour of Blue House by men and women wearing dark glasses to impress on him how secured and heavily guarded is the Blue House, the patrols, guards, electric fence, cctvs etc etc. And this privilege knowledge is replayed in Mr Bean's head as he dry run his escape plan.
Scene 3. Mr Bean's family members visit him and under the watchful eyes of men and women in dark glasses, he manages to slip his escape plan to them. This part requires special talent from Mr Bean's arsenal of childish but effective tricks.
Scene 4. Mr Bean is led to the toilet by women in dark glass for a pee. This is followed up by his contortionist act of squeezing through the toilet window. But before that he would have to lay his carpet of toilet rolls nicely to break his fall.
Scene 5. Mr Bean is out of the toilet and out of sight of the men and women in dark glasses. He also changes into dark suits and put on dark glasses and walked out of the Blue House in style. But before that he laid a series of traces leading to the high security fence, attaching a piece of his prison wear on the fence to lead the men in dark glasses to go astray, thinking that he climbed over the fence.
Scene 6. Out on a limb, he continued to leave clues that he had taken a path into the nearby jungle before taking a lift from his friends waiting nearby. This would be followed by a mad scramble by the men and women in dark glasses running all over the jungle.
Scene 7. Mr Bean enjoying his pop corn watching TV in his sister's flat while the security forces were combing all the tourist sites and parks looking for him.
Scene 8. Mr Bean, now acting as the minister in charge with a little makeover, appeared on TV to make his famous assessment of his whereabout, something like, 'He is either in the island or he is out of the island.'
Scene 9. This is the interesting part with Mr Bean planning his escape to Malaysia. Several scenarios can be worked on like how he swims across the Singapore Straits, aided by his limping leg that actually became a super rudder or tail fin. Or he could be seen testing on different kinds of gear, plastic bags, drink bottles, oil drums or simply hanging on to a coconut trunk.
Scene 10. He abandons all the childish plans to swim across the Straits and confidently walks through the customs at the Causeway, wearing dark glasses and in dark suits.
Scene 11. How Mr Bean is enjoying his new freedom in a kampong but feeling dull with an unexciting life doing nothing. Then he hatches a plan to inform the Malaysian Police for a deal to hand him back to the men and women in dark glasses so that he could continue to enjoy his pleasant stay at the Blue House in Mount Pleasant. The End.
Actually there are many scripts for a Singapore version of Mr Bean or Missy Bean with Michelle Chong as the Singapore version of Mr Bean. It could be made into a serial with so many wonderful ideas coming from the political scene. Things like how Missy Bean buys a flat with a $1000 pay, how she looks so dignified when she struck Toto, or how she exercises picking cardboards and pushing makeshift carts, or how she sneers at the 3rd, 4th or 5th raters by not wanting to join the opposition when invited, or trying to explain how GST is to help the poor, or why CPF is not your money and it is good to put more money into the CPF, safe forever. And her favourite, how to be a foreign talent and survives in this island that is so welcoming of foreign talents like maids and construction workers, how she takes a Grab taxi driven by her employer.....
There are just so many humorous things for Missy Bean in Red Dot to act on. I am sure all of you would have even better ideas and better scripts for Missy Bean.
Below is a draft of my script for this movie, titled 'Mr Bean's Escape from Blue House'.
Scene 1. Mr Bean, the terrorist, is happily daydreaming of his success as a terrorist and being rewarded high heavens until the knocking at the door, at 3am woke him up. And a few men in dark glasses, in the wee hours, in dark suit and take him away.
Scene 2. Mr Bean, the terrorist, is taken on a tour of Blue House by men and women wearing dark glasses to impress on him how secured and heavily guarded is the Blue House, the patrols, guards, electric fence, cctvs etc etc. And this privilege knowledge is replayed in Mr Bean's head as he dry run his escape plan.
Scene 3. Mr Bean's family members visit him and under the watchful eyes of men and women in dark glasses, he manages to slip his escape plan to them. This part requires special talent from Mr Bean's arsenal of childish but effective tricks.
Scene 4. Mr Bean is led to the toilet by women in dark glass for a pee. This is followed up by his contortionist act of squeezing through the toilet window. But before that he would have to lay his carpet of toilet rolls nicely to break his fall.
Scene 5. Mr Bean is out of the toilet and out of sight of the men and women in dark glasses. He also changes into dark suits and put on dark glasses and walked out of the Blue House in style. But before that he laid a series of traces leading to the high security fence, attaching a piece of his prison wear on the fence to lead the men in dark glasses to go astray, thinking that he climbed over the fence.
Scene 6. Out on a limb, he continued to leave clues that he had taken a path into the nearby jungle before taking a lift from his friends waiting nearby. This would be followed by a mad scramble by the men and women in dark glasses running all over the jungle.
Scene 7. Mr Bean enjoying his pop corn watching TV in his sister's flat while the security forces were combing all the tourist sites and parks looking for him.
Scene 8. Mr Bean, now acting as the minister in charge with a little makeover, appeared on TV to make his famous assessment of his whereabout, something like, 'He is either in the island or he is out of the island.'
Scene 9. This is the interesting part with Mr Bean planning his escape to Malaysia. Several scenarios can be worked on like how he swims across the Singapore Straits, aided by his limping leg that actually became a super rudder or tail fin. Or he could be seen testing on different kinds of gear, plastic bags, drink bottles, oil drums or simply hanging on to a coconut trunk.
Scene 10. He abandons all the childish plans to swim across the Straits and confidently walks through the customs at the Causeway, wearing dark glasses and in dark suits.
Scene 11. How Mr Bean is enjoying his new freedom in a kampong but feeling dull with an unexciting life doing nothing. Then he hatches a plan to inform the Malaysian Police for a deal to hand him back to the men and women in dark glasses so that he could continue to enjoy his pleasant stay at the Blue House in Mount Pleasant. The End.
Actually there are many scripts for a Singapore version of Mr Bean or Missy Bean with Michelle Chong as the Singapore version of Mr Bean. It could be made into a serial with so many wonderful ideas coming from the political scene. Things like how Missy Bean buys a flat with a $1000 pay, how she looks so dignified when she struck Toto, or how she exercises picking cardboards and pushing makeshift carts, or how she sneers at the 3rd, 4th or 5th raters by not wanting to join the opposition when invited, or trying to explain how GST is to help the poor, or why CPF is not your money and it is good to put more money into the CPF, safe forever. And her favourite, how to be a foreign talent and survives in this island that is so welcoming of foreign talents like maids and construction workers, how she takes a Grab taxi driven by her employer.....
There are just so many humorous things for Missy Bean in Red Dot to act on. I am sure all of you would have even better ideas and better scripts for Missy Bean.
9/08/2018
What has stupidity has no cure got to do with ride hail ride companies?
China is conducting a nation wide inspection of all ride hailing companies after a passenger was raped and murdered after calling a ride from Didi. It always needs a painful lesson for people to wake up. But for the stupidity has no cure type, no amount of lessons would change their thinking and way of life unless it affects them personally.
China is in a way quite homogeneous other than the autonomous regions. They too are quite homogeneous in their own ways. Any foreigner or stranger to their provinces would be noticeable. In Red Dot, when more than 50% of the residents are foreigners, with a large number of foreigners given citizenship, everyone is a stranger and no longer raise the red flag.
With ride hailing companies, and with taxis allowing locals, ie foreigners and new citizens to drive taxis, are there risk to personal security? Our strawberry generations are happily jumping into taxis and Grab rides without a single thought on who is the driver and his background. Singapore is very safe and safety is being taken for granted, not only by the strawberry generations but by parents and the govt.
The strangers, now locals, that were brought in are totally unknown elements, just like the maids. And they are given the right to drive our people, children and women in their cars to anywhere they like, and the maids are trusted to take care of our olds and babies with very little supervision, and to live in the homes. What kind of people are they, any psychiatric, psychopathic or mental problems, terrorist connections, paedophiles, sex maniacs, people with questionable morality and criminals?
The lackadaisical ways we go about allowing these foreigners to come in and live with us, and mingle with us like one of us is scary if one has any sense of fear and safety concerns. The exception clause always applies to Singapore. It would not happen here. We are very safe, very well governed. The foreigners we brought in are good people. They don't commit crimes, only Singaporeans commit crimes.
Good luck to the stupidity has no cures.
China is in a way quite homogeneous other than the autonomous regions. They too are quite homogeneous in their own ways. Any foreigner or stranger to their provinces would be noticeable. In Red Dot, when more than 50% of the residents are foreigners, with a large number of foreigners given citizenship, everyone is a stranger and no longer raise the red flag.
With ride hailing companies, and with taxis allowing locals, ie foreigners and new citizens to drive taxis, are there risk to personal security? Our strawberry generations are happily jumping into taxis and Grab rides without a single thought on who is the driver and his background. Singapore is very safe and safety is being taken for granted, not only by the strawberry generations but by parents and the govt.
The strangers, now locals, that were brought in are totally unknown elements, just like the maids. And they are given the right to drive our people, children and women in their cars to anywhere they like, and the maids are trusted to take care of our olds and babies with very little supervision, and to live in the homes. What kind of people are they, any psychiatric, psychopathic or mental problems, terrorist connections, paedophiles, sex maniacs, people with questionable morality and criminals?
The lackadaisical ways we go about allowing these foreigners to come in and live with us, and mingle with us like one of us is scary if one has any sense of fear and safety concerns. The exception clause always applies to Singapore. It would not happen here. We are very safe, very well governed. The foreigners we brought in are good people. They don't commit crimes, only Singaporeans commit crimes.
Good luck to the stupidity has no cures.
9/07/2018
AWAS - Sick minds at work
The MHA has issued a statement that Thum PJ and his group have crossed
the red line for inviting Mahathir to bring democracy to Singapore. My
eyes are rolling. What, what? Is democracy a bad thing for Singapore? Is
not Singapore being telling the world that it is a democracy and not a
dictatorship or any other not too nice sounding political names?
Let me put it in a different way. Would someone be crossing the red line for asking Xi Jingping to bring more investment into Singapore, or to bring the BRI into Singapore? The question to ask, are investments and BRI good for Singapore? Or would it be the same if Thum and group called on Mahathir to support the HSR?
Oh, the key is Mahathir is a foreigner, so calling a foreigner to do anything that is good for Singapore is crossing the red line, interfering in Singapore’s domestic affairs, even if it is good for Singapore, like democracy. Ok, I am assuming, I am assuming that democracy is good for Singapore. Is it or is it not?
Oh, does Singapore want democracy, does Singapore have democracy? For Thum and group to ask Mahathir to bring democracy to Singapore implies that Singapore does not have democracy or lacking in democracy? Tiok boh?
This is indeed funny. Does Singapore have democracy? Is Singapore a democracy? Why is bringing democracy to Singapore a bad thing, that Thum and group do not wish Singapore well? Bring democracy to Singapore is not in Singapore’s interest? Bring more foreigners to take over Singapore, oops, to become Singaporean, to steal Singaporeans’ lunch is good for Singapore, no crossing of red line?
Actually what did Thum, or actually Tan Wah Piow, invite Mahathir to do? It was reported that Tan Wah Piow asked him to bring democracy or to talk about democracy in SE Asia, not Singapore in particular. Well all pegs are round pegs as long as you hammer them hard enough into a round hole. This kind of contorted logic or injustice would be turned around when political power changed hands. By then the traitors would become the angels and the angels would become traitors. That day will come, it is a matter of when, like in Malaysia or in any country or empire for that matter. Nothing is forever. The wheel of fortune would turn and pity the rascals of the last empire or regime or the last emperor.
What do you think?
Let me put it in a different way. Would someone be crossing the red line for asking Xi Jingping to bring more investment into Singapore, or to bring the BRI into Singapore? The question to ask, are investments and BRI good for Singapore? Or would it be the same if Thum and group called on Mahathir to support the HSR?
Oh, the key is Mahathir is a foreigner, so calling a foreigner to do anything that is good for Singapore is crossing the red line, interfering in Singapore’s domestic affairs, even if it is good for Singapore, like democracy. Ok, I am assuming, I am assuming that democracy is good for Singapore. Is it or is it not?
Oh, does Singapore want democracy, does Singapore have democracy? For Thum and group to ask Mahathir to bring democracy to Singapore implies that Singapore does not have democracy or lacking in democracy? Tiok boh?
This is indeed funny. Does Singapore have democracy? Is Singapore a democracy? Why is bringing democracy to Singapore a bad thing, that Thum and group do not wish Singapore well? Bring democracy to Singapore is not in Singapore’s interest? Bring more foreigners to take over Singapore, oops, to become Singaporean, to steal Singaporeans’ lunch is good for Singapore, no crossing of red line?
Actually what did Thum, or actually Tan Wah Piow, invite Mahathir to do? It was reported that Tan Wah Piow asked him to bring democracy or to talk about democracy in SE Asia, not Singapore in particular. Well all pegs are round pegs as long as you hammer them hard enough into a round hole. This kind of contorted logic or injustice would be turned around when political power changed hands. By then the traitors would become the angels and the angels would become traitors. That day will come, it is a matter of when, like in Malaysia or in any country or empire for that matter. Nothing is forever. The wheel of fortune would turn and pity the rascals of the last empire or regime or the last emperor.
What do you think?
9/06/2018
Lawrence Wong – factually, legally wrong
‘It is "factually and legally wrong" to claim that Housing Board flat
buyers do not own their flats and are merely renting them, said Minister
of National Development Lawrence Wong.
That is because all buyers of leasehold properties - whether public or private - enjoy ownership rights over their properties during the period of the lease.
"They can also sell their properties and benefit from any upside, or rent it out if they choose to," he said at the Peak Forum for property industry professionals at HDB Hub on Tuesday (Sept 4)….
Mr Wong added that the Government welcomes all feedback and views on public housing, especially as the topic is one that Singaporeans care deeply about.
"But the debate must always be based on facts, not misinformation and half-truths," he said.
He did not name any commentators but The Straits Times had published a commentary on Aug 14 by International Property Advisor chief executive Ku Swee Yong, who recommended "that we be honest with ourselves and recognise that we are merely lessees who rent the HDB flats for their terms".’ Asia One
The controversy over whether HDB flat owners are lessees or tenants of rental flats continues. The people are increasingly taking the view that they are not owners of HDB flats but tenants on long rentals. The govt is very annoyed by this interpretation and insists that the HDB flat owners are owners but on a 99 year lease. This controversy is starting to sound funny if not of the legal implications like property tax and freedom to do what they want with their flats if they are the owners.
The govt is taking the high ground that it is agreeable to a public debate by the debate must be based on facts, not misinformation and half truths. In the above quote, Ku Swee Yong was quoted to say this, ‘that we be honest with ourselves and recognise that we are merely lessees who rent the HDB flats for their terms’, implying that this is either not facts, or misinformation or half truths or a combination of all three. I dunno which is which as the person quoting it would have his own interpretation and so would anyone reading it. There must be some misgivings on the govt’s part, or is it Asia One for quoting Ku Swee Yong. Now, what is the problem with this statement?
What about this statement by Lawrence Wong, ‘That is because all buyers of leasehold properties - whether public or private - enjoy ownership rights over their properties during the period of the lease.
"They can also sell their properties and benefit from any upside, or rent it out if they choose to.’
Are these statements facts, misinformation or half truths? Are public leasehold properties the same as private leasehold properties? Off hand I could point out a few differences. 1. The cost of the land is different in the sense that private leasehold lands are bought at market price. Some public leasehold lands are acquired under different sets of rules and prices. 2. There are many conditions attached to public leasehold properties that are absent in private leasehold properties. 3. The paying of a sales levy instead of the full sales price that means profits from price appreciation will be taken away by the govt. 4. No collective sales. 5. Cannot remortgage except under HDB terms. 6. No commercial loans after 60 years. 7. Stringent HDB rules on subletting. 8. Basically no full ownership rights. 9. Time restriction on resale after 5 years.
So, are public leasehold properties the same as private leasehold properties? Are the statements full facts, not misinformation or half truths?
When one is talking about facts and truths, one must be talking about apple and comparing apple with apples not apples with oranges. Tiok boh?
KNN, everyone claiming to be telling the truth, nothing but the truth, not half truth. Can anyone tell me who is telling the truth and who is telling half truth?
That is because all buyers of leasehold properties - whether public or private - enjoy ownership rights over their properties during the period of the lease.
"They can also sell their properties and benefit from any upside, or rent it out if they choose to," he said at the Peak Forum for property industry professionals at HDB Hub on Tuesday (Sept 4)….
Mr Wong added that the Government welcomes all feedback and views on public housing, especially as the topic is one that Singaporeans care deeply about.
"But the debate must always be based on facts, not misinformation and half-truths," he said.
He did not name any commentators but The Straits Times had published a commentary on Aug 14 by International Property Advisor chief executive Ku Swee Yong, who recommended "that we be honest with ourselves and recognise that we are merely lessees who rent the HDB flats for their terms".’ Asia One
The controversy over whether HDB flat owners are lessees or tenants of rental flats continues. The people are increasingly taking the view that they are not owners of HDB flats but tenants on long rentals. The govt is very annoyed by this interpretation and insists that the HDB flat owners are owners but on a 99 year lease. This controversy is starting to sound funny if not of the legal implications like property tax and freedom to do what they want with their flats if they are the owners.
The govt is taking the high ground that it is agreeable to a public debate by the debate must be based on facts, not misinformation and half truths. In the above quote, Ku Swee Yong was quoted to say this, ‘that we be honest with ourselves and recognise that we are merely lessees who rent the HDB flats for their terms’, implying that this is either not facts, or misinformation or half truths or a combination of all three. I dunno which is which as the person quoting it would have his own interpretation and so would anyone reading it. There must be some misgivings on the govt’s part, or is it Asia One for quoting Ku Swee Yong. Now, what is the problem with this statement?
What about this statement by Lawrence Wong, ‘That is because all buyers of leasehold properties - whether public or private - enjoy ownership rights over their properties during the period of the lease.
"They can also sell their properties and benefit from any upside, or rent it out if they choose to.’
Are these statements facts, misinformation or half truths? Are public leasehold properties the same as private leasehold properties? Off hand I could point out a few differences. 1. The cost of the land is different in the sense that private leasehold lands are bought at market price. Some public leasehold lands are acquired under different sets of rules and prices. 2. There are many conditions attached to public leasehold properties that are absent in private leasehold properties. 3. The paying of a sales levy instead of the full sales price that means profits from price appreciation will be taken away by the govt. 4. No collective sales. 5. Cannot remortgage except under HDB terms. 6. No commercial loans after 60 years. 7. Stringent HDB rules on subletting. 8. Basically no full ownership rights. 9. Time restriction on resale after 5 years.
So, are public leasehold properties the same as private leasehold properties? Are the statements full facts, not misinformation or half truths?
When one is talking about facts and truths, one must be talking about apple and comparing apple with apples not apples with oranges. Tiok boh?
KNN, everyone claiming to be telling the truth, nothing but the truth, not half truth. Can anyone tell me who is telling the truth and who is telling half truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)