melvyn tan's concert

the mistake made by melvyn tan is not to denounce his citizenship earlier, ie, before he is due for ns. if he had done so and taken up another citizenship then there will not be the need to call him up. he would not be a defaulter and he could return as a visitor or even live here as a pr. the irony is that his delay is probably due to his desire to retain his citizenship, continue to be a singaporean, and that is something he values. while on the other hand some will be quite decisive in giving up the singapore citizenship and prepared to cut off all ties here. as much as the country appreciates his talent and sincerity to return and contribute whatever he has, accepting melvyn tan has and will upset the whole ns system and all the ns men past, present and future. the $3,000 fine was a way of telling melvyn tan that he is welcomed home. but given the reaction to this reception, no one can really tell how bad this will turn out eventually. how could the nation answer to all the ns men to treat melvyn tan as an exception? how could the nation reconcile the return of a prodigal son? any leniency shown to defaulters will have to contend with the feelings of hundreds of thousand of ns men. there must be a way to accept our sons who have made a wrong decision when they were young or when their parents miscalculated. but whatever ways, it must not be seen as to encourage young men to abscond when they are called up for ns and think that the nation will welcome them with open arms, one day. perhaps allowing them to return as prs is not a bad idea. and melvyn tan could just do that if he had denounced his citizenship before he is callup. it is more a technical fault. could there be a formula to allow our sons to return and be singaporeans again without incurring the wrath of all ns men? it is a pity that melvyn tan has to cancel his concert.

corporate governance by khaw boon wan

according to khaw boon wan, 'the key points about corporate govenance, aside from accountability and transparency, is checks and balances. This is not your own company, your own family business. Even if it is your own family business, and you have minority shareholders, you have to be accountable.' in corporate governance you need watchdogs to watch the professional management. but how can watchdogs be watchdogs if they are appointed by the people they are supposed to watch?

how truthful is the media?

the rot in the integrity and reliability of the american establishment and media is starting to show. selling, publishing and disseminating false information are now out into the open. there is no need for denials. only the stubbornly naive and well conditioned mind will still attest to believe the words of the american establishment and the western media. for decades and perhaps centuries, the western media and literature have been feeding and conditioning the minds and thinking processes of the world, especially the ex colonial countries. they have set the agenda, feed the doctored input and direct their views and behaviour to serve western interests. and many asians and africans are totally oblivious to such covert manouvres and swear by the western press as the god of freedom and truth. sure there are many truths, not that all were lies. all the truths will be truths as long as they serve their intended purposes and objectives. and among the truths will be all the untruths and half truths and lies that were presented as truths. the wmd in iraq is the greatest of all truths. the other aspect is the untold truths. and for the same reasons, many truths were kept hidden and not revealed. the number of american casualties in iraq is the truth. the untold truth is the number of iraqi casualties. not appropriate to tell. and you can't accuse them for lying by not talking about it. the recent drug trafficking case is another example of unspoken truths. the less than pristine background of the twins and their criminal records were deliberately not spoken. they don't lie. but they don't tell the whole truth. shall we ask how truthful is the media? or how much truths that they will not tell? which is more pertinent and which is a disservice to the public who wants to know the whole truth? one needs not tell a lie to lie. However, Howard said it was important to be realistic about what could be achieved. "If anyone imagines a diplomatic offensive by Australia is going to change the attitude of China, or the attitude of Singapore or Malaysia or other countries in the region to capital punishment, then I think they are mistaken," he said on Australian Broadcasting Corp. television. howard is telling the truth but excludes the usa when bush has spoken in favour of capital punishment. what howard had done is to paint a picture that all these countries are somewhat barbaric for having capital punishment but not the usa.

a time bomb waiting to blow apart

in the following days or weeks, our social and political picture is going to take a dramatic change, blown apart. if the words of khaw boon wan are to be taken seriously, he has in all but said that many heads will row in the aftermath of the nkf investigations. for khaw boon wan to state it out front that the investigators should also investigate on his ministry, and he is willing to listen and correct any shortcomings, he has set the tone that everyone is accountable for his own actions. seldom has a man in authority in this nation to admit categorically that he could have been naive and over trusting, which means that he was misled. such admission of fault in the public is unprecedented. but it means that whatever that is going to happen is going to be serious. and khaw boon wan is serious. the misconception that corporate governance will take care of itself if reputable, well trained and professional people are placed in the board, will now take a heavy blow. men of skills are not necessary men of good will. men of reputation and high office are just as vulnerable to the temptation of power and greed. men with a good heart and moral integrity do not necessarily come with professional skills and expertise. and this is an area that is sorely lacking in the world of corporate governance.

australia to champion abolishing death penalty

nguyen's lawyer, julian mcmahon, is all fired up to take the cause of ending death penalty in a world crusade. the latest execution in the usa has made it more urgent for australia to stand up even to the usa to make it's stand on the issue stick. otherwise they will look funny if the fight is only for australians. what mcmahon said is that 'mandatory, premeditated state sanctioned killing is legally and morally repugnant.' in the case of death sentence for a drug trafficker, people's views differ. some are kinder and more agreeable with a little drug. to them it is no big deal to abuse oneself. some are more persistent to wipe out this scourge. it is understandable that some will want death and some will not want it. if premeditated killing by a state is so repugnant and must be stopped at all cost, what about premeditated murders? many murders, some very vicious, and gory, were premeditated, with the victim or victims butchered to a painful and horrifying death, pleading for mercy at the hands of cruel murderers. would these murderers also be spared the death penalty too? are we protecting the victims of gruesome crimes or should society protect the abominable murderers? should death penalty be abolished for all crimes?

are we putting our money in the right place?

$160 million for aljunied, $570 million for sembawang, $500 million for east coast town, $330 million for tampines. this is a cool $1.56 billion! and another $160 million for east coast park giving a total of $1.72 million. the moe financial assistance scheme for poor families stood at a handsome $1.5 million, or this is the amount it will spend this year to help needy students to pay for school fees and books. the conditions for students to qualify for such assistance is a mean $1,000 household income. for those with 1 or 2 children, the family must earn less than $900 to qualify. are we really that mean to our people and so lavish on plants and parks and bricks and mortars? don't our people deserve a little more? tharman said the ministry is reviewing the criteria and will try to extend more assistance to a bigger group of people. this is good news. but how wide is the net? can the govt be more generous to the lower income and allocate more funds for them? no one wants to be poor and depend on charity. and no one wants to stretch out the hand to beg. it would be good that the govt allocate a decent sum for this group of people so that more will benefit. a little generosity and magnanimity will be well received. how about $150 million, less than 10% of the $1.72 billion to be spent on landscaping and lifts? we have $500 million in the comcare fund. but because of the mean criteria set up by mean people, only a very small amount has been dispensed out and very few people really benefitted from it. and those who received them are receiving a miserable sum that they hardly could put a smile on their faces. this is an area that a rich nation can afford to be a little frivolous. we need to put our priorities right, change our priorities to make the poor less poor, put some smile into their faces. no need to waste $160 million into a park. a park at most deserves $60 million and the rest can be given to the people. and giving to the people does not mean being kept somewhere as savings for the future, to last another 10 or 20 years. the money is to help the people. then use it to help the people. be a bit more generous and kind. if the money cannot help the majority of the unfortunate for a year or two, at least offer them a decent meal for a few days. let them feel good for a few days is not that difficult with the $500 million fund. it seems that the thinking is that help means allowing the needy to have exactly a bowl of plain rice so that they need not die. then the rest is up to them. there is a time for charity, a time to give and a time to share, like christmas, where one can bring some cheers to those who need them. and when the country is able to help then why not bring a little cheer to the people's life?

sending the wrong message

in the whole episode of nguyen van tuong, singapore's stand and message is simple and clear. drug is harmful, not allowed in singapore. when you bring drugs here, you will be hanged. we upheld our laws with no regard to your nationality. once in our soil, all will be treated equally in the eyes of our law. so stay clear from our soil. we have balls. very hard and pricky balls. this is symbolised by our two durians, a national symbol of hard balls for the world to see. the message sent out by australia is quite different. drugs is no good, but not that bad either. and if you are an australian, even if you break another nation's law, the whole nation will be behind you. we will put pressure on the offended nation to bow to us. we will do everything to protect our citizens, right or wrong. so stand tall as an australian. other nations must respect our laws and values. after the episode ends, senses and reasons return. howard finally told the australians that drug is bad. and that they must not try to bring drugs into other countries that have tough laws. but he stop short of saying whether the whole govt machinery will still be mobilised to interfere into other countries sovereignity when an australian violates their laws. what message is australia sending to its people?