Man fined $4,500 for Scoot bomb hoax. This was the headline of
thenewpaper yesterday. When I read the content I could not even cry,
could not even laugh. My jaw dropped in disbelief. This is another
classic story of stupidity has no cure for the record. I will just state
the facts as reported in thenewpaper and let you guys wonder what it
was all about.
A man, Hsu Chun Meng, was flying off to HatYai on a Scoot flight. His
hand luggage was too big to fit into the overhead luggage compartment
and the stewardess told him he had to check in his baggage. She also
asked him if he had any prohibited items in the bag. He replied,
‘Nothing, only bombs.’ The stewardess stared at him and he replied, ‘No
bomb lah. Joking. How can it be?’
When the plane was about to take off, the stewardess reported the
incident to the cabin crew in charge. The latter tried to contact the
captain but unable to do so as the flight was about to take off and the
cockpit door was locked.
She only managed to talk to the captain after take off and the captain
followed the established protocol, made a Mayday call and flew the
aircraft back to Singapore. The plane was carrying 179 passengers. A
fighter aircraft was scrambled to escort it back.
The man was subsequently charged and fined $4,500 for the bomb hoax.
These were the facts. Over to you guys. Laugh if you can, cry if you want.
Stupidity has no cure? What do you think?
Key points. If it was a real bomb and not a hoax. If it was a joke….
10/05/2018
10/04/2018
Govt hospital as profit making business
I wrote about this subject many years back, that with the increasing
medical fees and profits in the health business many govt doctors and
specialists would be attracted to leave for the private sector to make
their millions. The smell of money is intoxicating. And there is no need
to utter silly things like big sacrifices. This is only human nature.
Everyone in any profession would be attracted and want to make as much
money as they could. Staying and working in the govt hospitals would no
longer be a good choice except for those that value their contribution
to the bigger good of society and patients more than money making.
As such it would be expedient and practical for some sort of arrangement or combination to allow govt hospital doctors and specialists to enjoy some monetary perks by offering their expertise to private patients at market rate. Govt hospitals could set aside a certain percentage of hospital beds and doctors/specialists for this purpose to take a share of the medical tourism business.
A main benefit for such an arrangement is to retain more doctors/specialists in govt hospitals as otherwise they would leave for the more rewarding private sector. Another benefit is that the profits generated could be used to lower the cost of subsidised patients in govt hospitals. In this way, both the doctors/specialists and subsidized patients would be winners, and lesser staff turnover problems for govt hospitals. The govt doctors and specialists would be recognized and rewarded to some extent for their skills and expertise without having to envy their rich peers in the private sectors.
The caveat is that there must be enough capacity in govt hospitals to take care of full paying private patients and the general public on subsidized rates. This is basic in managing skills. Carefully tweaked this could be a win win solution for all parties.
I just read in theindependent that this scheme was actually in practice for a number of years but would be stopped because of the short supply of beds in govt hospitals. This is from theindependent.sg, ‘After nearly a decade of not banning such practices, MOH has now told hospitals that they are no longer allowed to “actively market themselves to foreign patients” since the priority of public healthcare institutions must be to serve Singaporeans’ healthcare needs.
MOH’s decision comes after the public hospital bed crunch across Singapore, in recent years.
In one notable case in 2014, CGH pitched tents on its hospital grounds to accommodate patients after reaching 100 per cent bed occupancy and despite renting wards from private hospitals to hold patients….’
With the termination of this arrangement, I think it would become a lose lose situation for all. And the cause of it, not enough hospital beds. Why? Don’t they plan ahead in view of the greater demands for hospital beds and services? I can think of the bicycle sharing schemes, a good scheme but short in planning. They never cater for more bicycle parking lots and regulations to stop littering of bicycles everywhere.
When there is high demand for such medical services, why don’t they build more hospitals and provide more beds? Not so simple? KNN, super talents with super out of this world pay cannot find a better solution than just simply stopping a good scheme that benefits everyone, including govt revenue, cannot plan ahead? This business is high value added, good profits, anytime better than promoting more kopitiams and hawker centres for low and semi skill labour and low returns that befit third world countries aspirations, or building more shopping centres.
Medical tourism is good business, highly reputable and highly desirable business requiring high skilled professionals, and a little planning and foresight could avoid this simple logistic problem of demand and supply.
What do you think?
As such it would be expedient and practical for some sort of arrangement or combination to allow govt hospital doctors and specialists to enjoy some monetary perks by offering their expertise to private patients at market rate. Govt hospitals could set aside a certain percentage of hospital beds and doctors/specialists for this purpose to take a share of the medical tourism business.
A main benefit for such an arrangement is to retain more doctors/specialists in govt hospitals as otherwise they would leave for the more rewarding private sector. Another benefit is that the profits generated could be used to lower the cost of subsidised patients in govt hospitals. In this way, both the doctors/specialists and subsidized patients would be winners, and lesser staff turnover problems for govt hospitals. The govt doctors and specialists would be recognized and rewarded to some extent for their skills and expertise without having to envy their rich peers in the private sectors.
The caveat is that there must be enough capacity in govt hospitals to take care of full paying private patients and the general public on subsidized rates. This is basic in managing skills. Carefully tweaked this could be a win win solution for all parties.
I just read in theindependent that this scheme was actually in practice for a number of years but would be stopped because of the short supply of beds in govt hospitals. This is from theindependent.sg, ‘After nearly a decade of not banning such practices, MOH has now told hospitals that they are no longer allowed to “actively market themselves to foreign patients” since the priority of public healthcare institutions must be to serve Singaporeans’ healthcare needs.
MOH’s decision comes after the public hospital bed crunch across Singapore, in recent years.
In one notable case in 2014, CGH pitched tents on its hospital grounds to accommodate patients after reaching 100 per cent bed occupancy and despite renting wards from private hospitals to hold patients….’
With the termination of this arrangement, I think it would become a lose lose situation for all. And the cause of it, not enough hospital beds. Why? Don’t they plan ahead in view of the greater demands for hospital beds and services? I can think of the bicycle sharing schemes, a good scheme but short in planning. They never cater for more bicycle parking lots and regulations to stop littering of bicycles everywhere.
When there is high demand for such medical services, why don’t they build more hospitals and provide more beds? Not so simple? KNN, super talents with super out of this world pay cannot find a better solution than just simply stopping a good scheme that benefits everyone, including govt revenue, cannot plan ahead? This business is high value added, good profits, anytime better than promoting more kopitiams and hawker centres for low and semi skill labour and low returns that befit third world countries aspirations, or building more shopping centres.
Medical tourism is good business, highly reputable and highly desirable business requiring high skilled professionals, and a little planning and foresight could avoid this simple logistic problem of demand and supply.
What do you think?
10/03/2018
Singapore at a cross road choosing between China and India
The last decade or so after the demise of LKY, Singapore has chosen to
follow the Americans and played the role of little USAs, dancing like
little puppets on a string, depending on which string the Americans were
pulling. It has a lot of advantages, primarily it gave Singapore the
luxury of punching above its weight, sitting on the shoulder of American
might. Singapore was so arrogant and confident that with the Americans
behind, it could kick anyone it liked, behaving like a spoilt brat.
China was no exception and treated just like another state to be told off, to be challenged with total disrespect as if Singapore was an equal to China’s economic and military might. The blaring at China to follow the dubious ruling of the so called ‘UN backed’ funny private court formed by one party on the South China Sea dispute was the last straw, and China hit back. It was a rude awakening, that small country could not anyhow barked at big powers and thought it could get away with it. The reality was so shocking to those that advocated punching above its weight and totally relied on and be dependent on the Americans for its security concerns. This blind belief in American power was given a rough jolt and a thorough review on this policy was undertaken. Singapore paid a heavy price for listening to wrong advice from people who had fallen asleep and did not know what was happening in the world of big power relations, people who believed in their own delusion of greatness.
The Americans were no longer the Americans they used to know. The China was no longer the China they knew. It was late than never to wake up to the new reality. The world has changed while Singapore happily took a nap, thinking that all was well, all was the same.
Subsequent to the new developments and a new awakening, Singapore took a deep breath and found that it has to reshape its position vis a vis the new balance of power. The American way is no longer the way to a safe and secure future. The belligerent and warring path of the evil Empire would only drag Singapore into more troubles and enmeshed in disputes and wars that it needed not be involved. There is a need for rebalancing and to take a new policy forward for the good of Singapore. Putting all its eggs into the American basket is not the right way or safe way going forward.
The Americans’ isolationist and unilateral policies of going alone and thinking American first policy make things clearer and easier for Singapore to change direction. Free trade, multilateralism and rule of law are what were good for Singapore and what Singapore stood for. But whither Singapore if it stops taking sides with the Americans blindly to create trouble all over the world, starting wars, engaging in wars and in conspiracies and in destabilizing countries and regions?
The two rising Asian powers in India and China were beckoning. Come join us, we are the future super powers. Should Singapore join the Indian camp and be as powerful and prosperous as India as India rises to become the next super power, or should Singapore join the Chinese growth engine and be part of the Chinese plan to rebuild the world? Would Singapore become more like India or more like China as it realigns its policies with the next winning side, the next super power after Pax Americana?
PS. If Chok Tong is still the PM, the direction is very clear. He is very proud of the CECA and his Indian fever and the demography of Singapore is likely to change.
As for Hsien Loong, after years of listening to the pro USA and Indian camp and antagonizing China, leading to the Terrex Incident, his position is now wavering. On one hand he is trying to get into the BRI band wagon and chirping that Sino Singapore relations are very good and Singapore must be neutral in big power rivalry. On the other hand, the attack on China continues in the main media with many biased and anti China articles published almost daily.
Where would Singapore be heading? Would Singapore become more like Mumbai or Shanghai?
China was no exception and treated just like another state to be told off, to be challenged with total disrespect as if Singapore was an equal to China’s economic and military might. The blaring at China to follow the dubious ruling of the so called ‘UN backed’ funny private court formed by one party on the South China Sea dispute was the last straw, and China hit back. It was a rude awakening, that small country could not anyhow barked at big powers and thought it could get away with it. The reality was so shocking to those that advocated punching above its weight and totally relied on and be dependent on the Americans for its security concerns. This blind belief in American power was given a rough jolt and a thorough review on this policy was undertaken. Singapore paid a heavy price for listening to wrong advice from people who had fallen asleep and did not know what was happening in the world of big power relations, people who believed in their own delusion of greatness.
The Americans were no longer the Americans they used to know. The China was no longer the China they knew. It was late than never to wake up to the new reality. The world has changed while Singapore happily took a nap, thinking that all was well, all was the same.
Subsequent to the new developments and a new awakening, Singapore took a deep breath and found that it has to reshape its position vis a vis the new balance of power. The American way is no longer the way to a safe and secure future. The belligerent and warring path of the evil Empire would only drag Singapore into more troubles and enmeshed in disputes and wars that it needed not be involved. There is a need for rebalancing and to take a new policy forward for the good of Singapore. Putting all its eggs into the American basket is not the right way or safe way going forward.
The Americans’ isolationist and unilateral policies of going alone and thinking American first policy make things clearer and easier for Singapore to change direction. Free trade, multilateralism and rule of law are what were good for Singapore and what Singapore stood for. But whither Singapore if it stops taking sides with the Americans blindly to create trouble all over the world, starting wars, engaging in wars and in conspiracies and in destabilizing countries and regions?
The two rising Asian powers in India and China were beckoning. Come join us, we are the future super powers. Should Singapore join the Indian camp and be as powerful and prosperous as India as India rises to become the next super power, or should Singapore join the Chinese growth engine and be part of the Chinese plan to rebuild the world? Would Singapore become more like India or more like China as it realigns its policies with the next winning side, the next super power after Pax Americana?
PS. If Chok Tong is still the PM, the direction is very clear. He is very proud of the CECA and his Indian fever and the demography of Singapore is likely to change.
As for Hsien Loong, after years of listening to the pro USA and Indian camp and antagonizing China, leading to the Terrex Incident, his position is now wavering. On one hand he is trying to get into the BRI band wagon and chirping that Sino Singapore relations are very good and Singapore must be neutral in big power rivalry. On the other hand, the attack on China continues in the main media with many biased and anti China articles published almost daily.
Where would Singapore be heading? Would Singapore become more like Mumbai or Shanghai?
10/02/2018
The forces for the abolishment of S377A gaining momentum
Read in YahooNews that a former ST editor by the name of Alan John is calling the people to take a stand for secularism when religious people use religion to impose their values on the secular. He posted an article in in face book and reported in coconuts.com titled, Former ST editor highlights the importance of standing up for secularism in the face of religious pressure.
This debate arising from the movement calling for the abolition of an 'outdated' law that forbids sex between men is seeing people taking sides for and against the law. Many prominent and eminent and influential elite and natural aristocrats have joint forces with the anti S377A law, calling for its abolition. The religious groups are also up in arms against this threat to the natural order of things, the natural order of creation. With the growing presence of LGBTs, the old natural order of things is looking like unnatural and the new natural order of things is like everything LGBT. So what is the natural order of things?
At the moment the majority is belongs to the old natural order of things. What if the LGBTs become a majority and the new natural order of things? We do not really know how big is the LGBTs as many are still hiding in the closets, many shy to own up to their sexual inclinations and preference, the number could be very large.
While the debate is going on and with stranger and stranger people, once thought of as the old natural order of things, speaking for the new natural order of things, one begins to question where are these people coming from? What is their agenda and who they really are?
Perhaps it is proper for the two camps to come clean and reveal their sexual preference or religious background before making a stand. In this way we will know why are these people taking the stand they chose to and not because of hidden motive or agenda. Ya, please come clean and be transparent. These two words are the key principles of Singaporean affairs. Anyone not coming clean is as guilty and sinister as the devil. When one fears coming clean, it means one is hiding something.
Let the debate continues with everyone declaring upfront who and what they are. I can understand the points raised between a sin and a crime, one a religious norm of what is acceptable and what is not, the other a legal position, a law to forbid a certain act. There are times when the two coincide and there are times when the two differ, sometimes by a lot, sometimes a little.
What do you think? Are the neutral, central, non partisan, hetero bias also taking sides, or those taking sides are actually not the neutral, central but partisan and homo bias, with vested interests in saying what they are saying?
PS. It is understandable that those born with such biological traits would behave or prefer to have their own ways or life style. But there are many that are born straight but unthinking or thinking that it is fashionable, after a few intakes of drugs, to think that this is the in thing to go for, the new natural order of things.
This debate arising from the movement calling for the abolition of an 'outdated' law that forbids sex between men is seeing people taking sides for and against the law. Many prominent and eminent and influential elite and natural aristocrats have joint forces with the anti S377A law, calling for its abolition. The religious groups are also up in arms against this threat to the natural order of things, the natural order of creation. With the growing presence of LGBTs, the old natural order of things is looking like unnatural and the new natural order of things is like everything LGBT. So what is the natural order of things?
At the moment the majority is belongs to the old natural order of things. What if the LGBTs become a majority and the new natural order of things? We do not really know how big is the LGBTs as many are still hiding in the closets, many shy to own up to their sexual inclinations and preference, the number could be very large.
While the debate is going on and with stranger and stranger people, once thought of as the old natural order of things, speaking for the new natural order of things, one begins to question where are these people coming from? What is their agenda and who they really are?
Perhaps it is proper for the two camps to come clean and reveal their sexual preference or religious background before making a stand. In this way we will know why are these people taking the stand they chose to and not because of hidden motive or agenda. Ya, please come clean and be transparent. These two words are the key principles of Singaporean affairs. Anyone not coming clean is as guilty and sinister as the devil. When one fears coming clean, it means one is hiding something.
Let the debate continues with everyone declaring upfront who and what they are. I can understand the points raised between a sin and a crime, one a religious norm of what is acceptable and what is not, the other a legal position, a law to forbid a certain act. There are times when the two coincide and there are times when the two differ, sometimes by a lot, sometimes a little.
What do you think? Are the neutral, central, non partisan, hetero bias also taking sides, or those taking sides are actually not the neutral, central but partisan and homo bias, with vested interests in saying what they are saying?
PS. It is understandable that those born with such biological traits would behave or prefer to have their own ways or life style. But there are many that are born straight but unthinking or thinking that it is fashionable, after a few intakes of drugs, to think that this is the in thing to go for, the new natural order of things.
10/01/2018
IPSOS- Most think can but cannot spot fake news
How credible are surveys conducted by marketing research agencies? If I
were to conduct a survey on whether Singaporeans or any nationals if
they could spot fake news by showing them 10 headlines, just headlines,
and ask them whether they are real or fake, how many would be able to
get the answers correct?
The answer is obvious. Just by reading a headline, it is highly impossible, highly improbable to know whether the content is real or fake. Even the committee members of the Select Committee on fake news would also fail miserably if they were to be put to such a test.
IPSOS is reported in thenewpaper as a global independent market research agency and they conducted a survey with the ‘aims to understand the susceptibility of Singaporeans towards fake news.’ And this is their conclusion, ‘Four in five Singaporeans say they can confidently spot fake news. But when put to the test, more than 90 per cent mistakenly identified at least one out of five fake headlines as real.’
This was how the test was conducted. ‘But when participants were given 10 news headlines from digital channels and asked to indicate which ones were fake, only 43 per cent correctly identified two or fewer fake headlines. Of the 10, half were fakes.’
Even if I were to tell just by reading headlines, I can confidently tell you that I would not have better clue or get better results than those being surveyed. And I can also confidently tell you the result would be the same if all the committee members of the Select Committee on fake news were put to the same test.
What do you think is the problem with this test? How credible and reliable is a test of this nature to understand the susceptibility of people towards fake news?
This is another case of stupidity has no cure. Who do you think are the stupid one?
Incidentally, who is smarter or cleverer to tell the public what is fake news or what is the truth and what to believe and what not to believe? The clever people in the Select Committee or some small groups of people thinking that they are smarter and cleverer than you? Are you nuts or idiots that need some unknown jokers to tell you what is true and what is fake? What is your IQ and what are their IQs?
The answer is obvious. Just by reading a headline, it is highly impossible, highly improbable to know whether the content is real or fake. Even the committee members of the Select Committee on fake news would also fail miserably if they were to be put to such a test.
IPSOS is reported in thenewpaper as a global independent market research agency and they conducted a survey with the ‘aims to understand the susceptibility of Singaporeans towards fake news.’ And this is their conclusion, ‘Four in five Singaporeans say they can confidently spot fake news. But when put to the test, more than 90 per cent mistakenly identified at least one out of five fake headlines as real.’
This was how the test was conducted. ‘But when participants were given 10 news headlines from digital channels and asked to indicate which ones were fake, only 43 per cent correctly identified two or fewer fake headlines. Of the 10, half were fakes.’
Even if I were to tell just by reading headlines, I can confidently tell you that I would not have better clue or get better results than those being surveyed. And I can also confidently tell you the result would be the same if all the committee members of the Select Committee on fake news were put to the same test.
What do you think is the problem with this test? How credible and reliable is a test of this nature to understand the susceptibility of people towards fake news?
This is another case of stupidity has no cure. Who do you think are the stupid one?
Incidentally, who is smarter or cleverer to tell the public what is fake news or what is the truth and what to believe and what not to believe? The clever people in the Select Committee or some small groups of people thinking that they are smarter and cleverer than you? Are you nuts or idiots that need some unknown jokers to tell you what is true and what is fake? What is your IQ and what are their IQs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)