The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so said the Bible. To the
atheists this sounds superfluous or nonsensical. Sometimes I too think,
well, who needs God. There is no need for God when human beans behave
like human beans and not like beasts. As human beans get more civilized
and wise, there is a trend of thought that there is no need for a
superior bean to carry a stick to whack the spoilt brat out to do
mischief and evil.
The hope for human beans to behave and be kind to other beans is a
hopeless case. In their pursuit for personal interest and well being,
human beans could turn cruel and evil against other beans. See how they
cut up Khashoggi. The wickedness of human beans had happened millions of
years ago, but with the years of progress and development this wicked
trait did not seem to go away. And it exhibits itself in the most
unexpected places, in places where you thought the people are more civil
or respectable or noble. One would think that when one has everything,
does not need anything, one could be magnanimous, gracious, kind,
compassionate or at least indifferent to the presence of others, to be
oblivious of the existence of others, to enjoy one’s life in peace,
luxury and tranquility. Why the need to dirty one’s hand with
wickedness?
No, in the name of fame, glory and money, human beans would not be less
evil and less wicked. The wickedness of human beans is inherent in the
DNA. Wicked human beans, wickedness, have no fear, are fearless. And
this is more apparent in those that wielded absolute power, believing in
themselves as the untouchables, the Gods on earth, the ones that decide
the fate of others with impunity. There is on greater God or gods to
mess around with their evilness.
The greater the power, the more one is surrounded with power, the more
invincible one thinks, and can become very ruthless and brutal to other
human beans. It is in such times when human beans become the
personification of evil, that would do evil with careless restraint,
that evilness becomes a way of life, second nature, that the need for a
superior bean to tame such wickedness is sorely needed. The desperate
would be calling for heaven and hell to break lose to tame the evil and
the wicked. When there is no hope for justice and fairness, human beans
would hope for the impossible, the supernatural, to lend them a helping
hand.
Their only hope is for the evil ones, the wicked ones, to have a fear of
God. Only when there is such a fear of God would the evil ones and the
wicked ones be less evil and less wicked. Unfortunately the evil ones
and the wicked ones would have no such fear of God. They would sneer at
the simplicity and futility of the losers hoping for a God to bring them
comfort and do them justice.
There is or there is no God is immaterial. The losers just hope that
there is a God. They wanted a God badly to be the final arbiter of good
and evil, and to punish the evil and the wicked. Is there a God to bring
justice and fairness to those that were done wrong?
The answer from history is NO. Evilness and wickedness triumphed. The
evil and wicked lived better lives than the losers. The losers would
always be the losers and be in despair, be at the mercy of the ruthless
and the wicked and the powerful, because there is no God no matter how
compelling is the reason for one.
If there is a God to stop the evil ones, then there would be lesser evil
and wicked deeds. Just look around at what the evil and wicked ones are
doing, daily, you will know that there is no God, they do not fear God.
10/17/2018
Jim Rogers banned from investing in North Korea
In a live interview, Jim Rogers said he has been to North Korea several times and found great opportunities to invest in that country. He said the North Koreans practically need everything and he would want to be the first to invest in that country. The North Korean govt has given approval for him to do the necessary.
He said he came from the land of the free, freedom of expression, of beliefs, of association, freedom to do anything. But, his country, the land of the free would not allow him to invest in North Korea. He is not free to invest in North Korea! See the irony, the hypocrisy?
The two Koreans would want to sign a peace agreement. The Chinese and Russians also supported the peace agreement. But the Americans would not want to sign a peace agreement with the North Koreans. For doing so, there would be no justification for the Americans to keep their military bases in South Korea or nuclear weapons there. There can be no peace agreement as far as the Americans are concerned. All the talks and hype are just that, for show, not to mean anything. Trump may be the only person who could be believed to want to sign a peace treaty with Kim. How much to make out of what he said is another thing. He and his gang are pushing for more sanctions on the North Koreans and demanding the North to denuclearise without the Americans doing so. Would he be doing the same stunt like calling Xi his good friend and then starts a trade war on Kim after North Korea has denuclearised? And you can bet all the other American leaders and agencies would be asking Trump to squeeze the North Koreans like an orange, and follow up with an invasion.
The two Koreans also know this. And they are going ahead with their own plan for peace and reunification without the approval of the Americans. Their actions would eventually make Trump and his USA irrelevant when the two Koreans sign a peace agreement without the Americans. When that happened, they would force a fait accompli on the Americans and it would be the Americans standing out like a sore thumb, the only evil one that is deadly against a Korean unification and peace in the Korean Peninsula.
The rest of the world and many Americans like Jim Rogers would be rushing into North Korea to take their first bite of the cherry when the Koreans open up their market. Caveat, Jim Rogers and his American investors could be left out in the cold, banned by the Americans from investing and trading with North Korea. The American's game of pretending to be the angel but really the devil behind the non ending Korean War would be exposed with horns and a tail to show.
Jim Rogers is a free man from the land of the free but has no freedom to invest in North Korea.
He said he came from the land of the free, freedom of expression, of beliefs, of association, freedom to do anything. But, his country, the land of the free would not allow him to invest in North Korea. He is not free to invest in North Korea! See the irony, the hypocrisy?
The two Koreans would want to sign a peace agreement. The Chinese and Russians also supported the peace agreement. But the Americans would not want to sign a peace agreement with the North Koreans. For doing so, there would be no justification for the Americans to keep their military bases in South Korea or nuclear weapons there. There can be no peace agreement as far as the Americans are concerned. All the talks and hype are just that, for show, not to mean anything. Trump may be the only person who could be believed to want to sign a peace treaty with Kim. How much to make out of what he said is another thing. He and his gang are pushing for more sanctions on the North Koreans and demanding the North to denuclearise without the Americans doing so. Would he be doing the same stunt like calling Xi his good friend and then starts a trade war on Kim after North Korea has denuclearised? And you can bet all the other American leaders and agencies would be asking Trump to squeeze the North Koreans like an orange, and follow up with an invasion.
The two Koreans also know this. And they are going ahead with their own plan for peace and reunification without the approval of the Americans. Their actions would eventually make Trump and his USA irrelevant when the two Koreans sign a peace agreement without the Americans. When that happened, they would force a fait accompli on the Americans and it would be the Americans standing out like a sore thumb, the only evil one that is deadly against a Korean unification and peace in the Korean Peninsula.
The rest of the world and many Americans like Jim Rogers would be rushing into North Korea to take their first bite of the cherry when the Koreans open up their market. Caveat, Jim Rogers and his American investors could be left out in the cold, banned by the Americans from investing and trading with North Korea. The American's game of pretending to be the angel but really the devil behind the non ending Korean War would be exposed with horns and a tail to show.
Jim Rogers is a free man from the land of the free but has no freedom to invest in North Korea.
10/16/2018
Singapore - Do less, achieve more
'Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of
the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group Annual Meetings in
Nusa Dua, Bali, Mr Heng said: "I’m very disappointed to read the Oxfam
report ... The report, rather erroneously attributed, measures the
performance (of countries) by input and how much money the public sector
is spending on education, on healthcare.
"As we know, what really matters to our people is the outcome. It's the health outcome, it's the educational outcome and those are fairly objective measures. So it is important for us to focus on the outcome and not get misled by input measures," he added. ' Quote from CNA
The economists and statisticians have certain ways of understanding an issue. One of the way that is making Heng Swee Kiat and other ministers unhappy is the correlation between input and output. The more you put in, eg money, the better will be the result. This is like paying higher and higher education fees to make sure the education is quality or paying millions if you want above mediocre ministers. You can't blame Heng and his peers for not understanding this relationship. Actually they should know better. They are the living practitioners of more money more results.
But why did Heng think otherwise, that it is not how much you put in but the outcome. The outcome in this case is not how much is being put in 'by the govt'. In this matter, you can spend less and get more, or do less or work less and get better results.
The first believer of this theory is Tharman when he was the Education Minister. He came out with 'teach less and learn more'. The trick is in the details and implementation. And this do less and achieve more catchphrase is gaining popularity. The latest from DBS, ''Bank less, live more" in a way comes from the same kind of reasoning. How about eat less and live well, eat less sugar to live healthier, or pay more sugar tax or water tax? Oops, I digress.
I am also a believer of this theory of doing less and achieve or getting more. I eat less, never full, and somehow feels healthier. I spent less on food, often a $3 meal is enough and still go kicking or running around. On this, never eat until your whole face is rough, rosy and oily. It may give one a wealthy and prosperous look, like towkays, but once lard start to ooze out from your pores and crevices, you are in deep trouble. I know it looks so rich and handsome, the wealthy and succesful look of having a good life, not the scrawny poor look, like a starving grey hound.
I digress again. I may like the do less achieve more catchphrase, but this is only good as a queer theory, an exception. In reality, in practice, it is more input, more output, more money, better quality. If not the ministers would not be asking to be paid in the millions and asking for more, or the universities would not be raising fees to improve their qualities. Same as the MRT, must raise fare to improve quality of service.
Then you ask, why they never say pay less and better quality of work and services? Should give it a try by paying the ministers less and see if the result would be better? Lower train fares, lower medical fees, lower tuition fees in universities, and achieve better results?
Would any minister be shouting, pay less get more? This is a good topic to table in Parliament.
PS. Can daft do less and achieve more? I think super talents can.
"As we know, what really matters to our people is the outcome. It's the health outcome, it's the educational outcome and those are fairly objective measures. So it is important for us to focus on the outcome and not get misled by input measures," he added. ' Quote from CNA
The economists and statisticians have certain ways of understanding an issue. One of the way that is making Heng Swee Kiat and other ministers unhappy is the correlation between input and output. The more you put in, eg money, the better will be the result. This is like paying higher and higher education fees to make sure the education is quality or paying millions if you want above mediocre ministers. You can't blame Heng and his peers for not understanding this relationship. Actually they should know better. They are the living practitioners of more money more results.
But why did Heng think otherwise, that it is not how much you put in but the outcome. The outcome in this case is not how much is being put in 'by the govt'. In this matter, you can spend less and get more, or do less or work less and get better results.
The first believer of this theory is Tharman when he was the Education Minister. He came out with 'teach less and learn more'. The trick is in the details and implementation. And this do less and achieve more catchphrase is gaining popularity. The latest from DBS, ''Bank less, live more" in a way comes from the same kind of reasoning. How about eat less and live well, eat less sugar to live healthier, or pay more sugar tax or water tax? Oops, I digress.
I am also a believer of this theory of doing less and achieve or getting more. I eat less, never full, and somehow feels healthier. I spent less on food, often a $3 meal is enough and still go kicking or running around. On this, never eat until your whole face is rough, rosy and oily. It may give one a wealthy and prosperous look, like towkays, but once lard start to ooze out from your pores and crevices, you are in deep trouble. I know it looks so rich and handsome, the wealthy and succesful look of having a good life, not the scrawny poor look, like a starving grey hound.
I digress again. I may like the do less achieve more catchphrase, but this is only good as a queer theory, an exception. In reality, in practice, it is more input, more output, more money, better quality. If not the ministers would not be asking to be paid in the millions and asking for more, or the universities would not be raising fees to improve their qualities. Same as the MRT, must raise fare to improve quality of service.
Then you ask, why they never say pay less and better quality of work and services? Should give it a try by paying the ministers less and see if the result would be better? Lower train fares, lower medical fees, lower tuition fees in universities, and achieve better results?
Would any minister be shouting, pay less get more? This is a good topic to table in Parliament.
PS. Can daft do less and achieve more? I think super talents can.
10/15/2018
Space exploration and cooperation - Politics is out
The failure of a Soyuz rocket to bring two astronauts to the International Space Station marks the ending of an era of space exploration where the Americans were calling the shot. After their failed mission to send astronauts to space with a batch of highly trained astronauts killed when Apollo exploded on take off, the Americans have lost confidence in their own rockets. They have tacked on to the Russians and the Soyuz rockets to send American astronauts to the ISS.
The failure of the latest launch is going to be a watershed in American/Russian space exploration. The big question, would the Russians be able to sort out the problems before the next mission? In the meantime the Americans are still crowing about their superiority in space technology and keeping China at a distance, obstructing China from participating in ISS and from sending Chinese astronauts to the space station. They are still calling the shot to sideline China despite being passengers in Russian rockets.
NASA's top official Bridenstine was quoted to say that in space exploration, politics has been kept separate from such cooperation. The cunning Americans are saying this because they desperately needed the Russian rockets to send American astronauts to space. Without the Russian's cooperation, they would have to play out their space exploration act in the Californian desert. But when dealing with China, politics would not be kept separated from space exploration and they would die die want to keep China out of the international space programme. This is what the hawkish John Bolton said recently, '''If they're (China) put back in the proper place they would be if they weren't allowed to steal our technology, their military capabilities would be substantially reduced. And a lot of the tensions we see caused by China would be reduced,"... He indicated that Washington was prepared to take more action to restrict sensitive high-tech exports to China. "We did this and continue to do it in terms of dual-use technology that could affect nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or ballistic-missile development.' Quote from CNA.
The silly Americans like John Bolton may continue to blindly brag about their superiority in technology in particular space technology. This idiot is so ignorant about the dismal fate coming the American way when the ISS outlived its expiry date in 2024. But the day of reckoning would come knocking earlier.
At this moment there are 3 astronauts in the ISS, an American, a German and a Russian. They were due to return home in December but the flight is delayed until further notice pending the Russians confirming they could fly the next rocket. And there is only enough food till April next year in the ISS. If the Russians were unable to resolve their rocket problems, these 3 men would be mummified in the ISS. There is no reliable American rocket that can do the job of flying them home.
Would the Americans come crawling and crying to Beijing and beg China to help them bring their astronaut home? Would they be chiding the Chinese not to get politics involved in space exploration, forgetting that they were the bastards that have kept the Chinese out of the international space exploration programme and from joining the ISS? Would idiots like John Bolton be still shouting about their superiority in space technology and wanting to keep China from stealing their technology or would they be desperately trying to steal Chinese space technology or Chinese rockets?
For the moment, NASA have made meek advances to China to want to be let into China's Space Station, which would be the only station in space after ISS came to the end of its lifespan in 2024. China would be stupid to allow the Americans in by the backdoor after being kept out of the ISS for so many decades by American hostility and arrogance.
The story of American astronaut trapped in the ISS is still evolving and will hit critical stage come next year if the Russians are unable to launch another rocket to the space station. Time is ticking away. What goes around would come around. The Americans must have a taste of their bad medicine.
The next big American anti China hooha could be 'Save American astronaut from Space' with the American politicising the issue and branding China as a heartless nation, not willing to cooperate and help to save poor American astronaut dying in space station. And all the silly Americans and bananas would rise to echo the American shitty political agenda.
The failure of the latest launch is going to be a watershed in American/Russian space exploration. The big question, would the Russians be able to sort out the problems before the next mission? In the meantime the Americans are still crowing about their superiority in space technology and keeping China at a distance, obstructing China from participating in ISS and from sending Chinese astronauts to the space station. They are still calling the shot to sideline China despite being passengers in Russian rockets.
NASA's top official Bridenstine was quoted to say that in space exploration, politics has been kept separate from such cooperation. The cunning Americans are saying this because they desperately needed the Russian rockets to send American astronauts to space. Without the Russian's cooperation, they would have to play out their space exploration act in the Californian desert. But when dealing with China, politics would not be kept separated from space exploration and they would die die want to keep China out of the international space programme. This is what the hawkish John Bolton said recently, '''If they're (China) put back in the proper place they would be if they weren't allowed to steal our technology, their military capabilities would be substantially reduced. And a lot of the tensions we see caused by China would be reduced,"... He indicated that Washington was prepared to take more action to restrict sensitive high-tech exports to China. "We did this and continue to do it in terms of dual-use technology that could affect nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or ballistic-missile development.' Quote from CNA.
The silly Americans like John Bolton may continue to blindly brag about their superiority in technology in particular space technology. This idiot is so ignorant about the dismal fate coming the American way when the ISS outlived its expiry date in 2024. But the day of reckoning would come knocking earlier.
At this moment there are 3 astronauts in the ISS, an American, a German and a Russian. They were due to return home in December but the flight is delayed until further notice pending the Russians confirming they could fly the next rocket. And there is only enough food till April next year in the ISS. If the Russians were unable to resolve their rocket problems, these 3 men would be mummified in the ISS. There is no reliable American rocket that can do the job of flying them home.
Would the Americans come crawling and crying to Beijing and beg China to help them bring their astronaut home? Would they be chiding the Chinese not to get politics involved in space exploration, forgetting that they were the bastards that have kept the Chinese out of the international space exploration programme and from joining the ISS? Would idiots like John Bolton be still shouting about their superiority in space technology and wanting to keep China from stealing their technology or would they be desperately trying to steal Chinese space technology or Chinese rockets?
For the moment, NASA have made meek advances to China to want to be let into China's Space Station, which would be the only station in space after ISS came to the end of its lifespan in 2024. China would be stupid to allow the Americans in by the backdoor after being kept out of the ISS for so many decades by American hostility and arrogance.
The story of American astronaut trapped in the ISS is still evolving and will hit critical stage come next year if the Russians are unable to launch another rocket to the space station. Time is ticking away. What goes around would come around. The Americans must have a taste of their bad medicine.
The next big American anti China hooha could be 'Save American astronaut from Space' with the American politicising the issue and branding China as a heartless nation, not willing to cooperate and help to save poor American astronaut dying in space station. And all the silly Americans and bananas would rise to echo the American shitty political agenda.
10/14/2018
StanChart looking for a new CEO?
'Lex adjudged that chief executive Bill Winters has done a poor job of preserving shareholder value — never mind building some — since he joined just over three years ago. The shares are down 40 per cent.
Emphasis mine. FT’s Letter from Lex summarising it’s article that’s behind a pay wall. Emphasis mine.
Time for Temasek, the controlling shareholder, to talk to other top 10 shareholders about removing him? Pigs will fly first. The CEO that ran the bank into the ground was kicked out because another top 10 shareholder,Aberdeen Asset Mgt, as it then was, organised a campaign against him.
But then Temasek’s paper general CEOs would also have to go if they are judged by best practices ang moh private sector standards.' Cynical Investor
The above were comments by Cynical Investor posted in TRE. He was talking about the financial woes in StanChart and the heavy fines it is paying the US govt. The shareholders are definitely unhappy with the current CEO and may be looking for a replacement. Temasek is a major shareholder of StanChart and would be concerned about who is next to helm the bank.
While Cynical Investor was talking about paper general CEOs in a different direction, maybe Temasek should seriously consider putting up one of its hundreds of paper general for the post. It has placed many paper generals in different CEO positions that were unrelated to the experience and training of a soldier general and all doing extremely well. Why not putting one as the CEO of StanChart? Cynical Investor also commented that this Winters made our paper general looked so good. OK a little OTJ may be required but this is chicken feat.
It is a good opportunity to train paper generals into top bankers. Singapore needs more locals, oops, shouldn't use this dirty word, I mean Singaporeans, to become top bankers. A top financial centre must continuously be grooming its citizens for such positions and not relying on foreigners all the time. It is high time such a scheme be put in place.
If this suggestion is a no go because a MNC would want its CEO to have relevant experience and soldiering experience of paper generals would not be accepted as good enough, perhaps Temasek can send its top Singaporean banker, Piyush Gupta to take over StanChart. Then the CEO of DBS can go to a Singaporean that is next in the queue.
The foreign shareholders inn StanChart would definitely welcome Gupta as he is now one of the world's top bankers, if not the best banker in the world, at least he is the best in Asia helming Asia's number One bank, DBS.
This would be a good career path to develop for retiring paper generals. DBS is a good training ground for paper generals to be bankers and then move on to helm StanChart or other foreign banks where Temasek is a majority shareholder. It is time that this career path be institutionalised to provide a good career for our hundreds of paper generals queuing up to join the private sector as CEOs.
Who do you think Mr Heng? Or shall I ask Mr Lee or Madam?
Emphasis mine. FT’s Letter from Lex summarising it’s article that’s behind a pay wall. Emphasis mine.
Time for Temasek, the controlling shareholder, to talk to other top 10 shareholders about removing him? Pigs will fly first. The CEO that ran the bank into the ground was kicked out because another top 10 shareholder,Aberdeen Asset Mgt, as it then was, organised a campaign against him.
But then Temasek’s paper general CEOs would also have to go if they are judged by best practices ang moh private sector standards.' Cynical Investor
The above were comments by Cynical Investor posted in TRE. He was talking about the financial woes in StanChart and the heavy fines it is paying the US govt. The shareholders are definitely unhappy with the current CEO and may be looking for a replacement. Temasek is a major shareholder of StanChart and would be concerned about who is next to helm the bank.
While Cynical Investor was talking about paper general CEOs in a different direction, maybe Temasek should seriously consider putting up one of its hundreds of paper general for the post. It has placed many paper generals in different CEO positions that were unrelated to the experience and training of a soldier general and all doing extremely well. Why not putting one as the CEO of StanChart? Cynical Investor also commented that this Winters made our paper general looked so good. OK a little OTJ may be required but this is chicken feat.
It is a good opportunity to train paper generals into top bankers. Singapore needs more locals, oops, shouldn't use this dirty word, I mean Singaporeans, to become top bankers. A top financial centre must continuously be grooming its citizens for such positions and not relying on foreigners all the time. It is high time such a scheme be put in place.
If this suggestion is a no go because a MNC would want its CEO to have relevant experience and soldiering experience of paper generals would not be accepted as good enough, perhaps Temasek can send its top Singaporean banker, Piyush Gupta to take over StanChart. Then the CEO of DBS can go to a Singaporean that is next in the queue.
The foreign shareholders inn StanChart would definitely welcome Gupta as he is now one of the world's top bankers, if not the best banker in the world, at least he is the best in Asia helming Asia's number One bank, DBS.
This would be a good career path to develop for retiring paper generals. DBS is a good training ground for paper generals to be bankers and then move on to helm StanChart or other foreign banks where Temasek is a majority shareholder. It is time that this career path be institutionalised to provide a good career for our hundreds of paper generals queuing up to join the private sector as CEOs.
Who do you think Mr Heng? Or shall I ask Mr Lee or Madam?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)