the hip hop controversy

Some younger MPs are attempting to parade themselves during the 2007 Ching gay procession doing hip hop. I don't know what that is. Must be something the young is doing. To be hip, to be cool and hopping around. Why is a simple fun activity generating so much controversies? Why can't young people have fun? Oh, they are MPs and are expected to be like MPs, speak up in Parliament for the interests of their constituents. Doing hip hop, now... is that what they are paid to do? There are all kinds of perceptions and expectations by the people, all kinds of people. What is acceptable to one is not necessarily acceptable to another. What a young MP thinks is a great idea may be a great idea to some but there will also be some who think otherwise. The volume of remarks in cyberspace and MSM is still flooding in, from the complimentary to the outright rejection and cynicism. But that is what being in the limelight all about. One stands out to be recognised and will receive all the accolades and all the rotten eggs. Not everyone sees things in the same way. What is good to you is not necessary good to other people. What is affordable to you is not necesarily affordable to other people. Hip hop is good to these young MPs but some will not agree. The moral of the story is that when they are in Parliament and thinking and speaking what is good for the people, please check with the people first.

myth 73

'The truth of half truths and truths in Cyberspace/MSM' Cyberspace has been accused by the MSM as something like the twilight zone, harbouring anything but truth. And many proclaimed truths are actually half truths. Truth can only be found in the MSM, spoken by honourable and reputable people in reputable publications written by professionals. Do I need to say anything further? A cup is half full, so I say. The other party say no it is half empty. So who is telling the truth? The Emperor is not wearing anything, so say Cyberspace. The MSM sees the same thing but not saying anything? Who is telling the truth or half truth? If Cyberspace talks about the poorer 20% of the population and MSM brags about the good life of the top 20% of the population, who is telling the truth and who is telling half truth? If Cyberspace cries out for the people who find that public transport fare is expensive, and MSM quoted comparative figures of New York, London and Hongkong and concluded that our fares are cheap, who is telling the truth and who is telling half truth? Is Cyberspace only spreading half truths and MSM only telling the whole truth?

mine is mine, yours also mine

When the NEP was first conceived, its target was for the bumiputras to own 30% of the nation's wealth. How this was defined was still as hazy as the Indonesian haze today. A figure of 30% Malay ownership by 2020 is now the official target. But 30% Malay ownership of what? The official govt figure is that the Malays only owned 18.9% and this is defined as all the 600,000 registered companies. An independent study by Asli came out with a 45% ownership. And quoting this figure is even seen as being irresponsible by Badawi. What has in fact been the case is that Malay ownership of GLCs, which are the meaty companies as they were huge, are not considered as Malay ownership in the bumiputra definition of the word. The official bumiputra definition of Malay ownership is that what is mine is mine and not counted. What belongs to the non bumis only can be counted. Jusr consider all the stocks in the KLSE alone, assuming that the GLCs eventually grow to 50% of the size of the stockmarket, it is still counted as zero Malay ownership. So when they achieved 30% of the balance 50% of non bumi ownership, they would in fact controlled 65% of all the stock value in the stock market. To think that mathematics is not their forte, they seemed to be able to count everything to their advantage. Or is this modern maths? Malay ownership means what is mine is mine and what is yours is 30% mine. Using this bumi definition, the 2020 target of 30% ownership is unlikely to be reached till the end of time as any company that is big enough could be bought over and become GLCs. The non bumis will be left with all the small and medium companies. And they are not marginalised.

myth 72

'Singaporeans are great pretenders' ' Hey zebra, why are you wearing pyjamas?' The zebra was angry and said the remark was uncalled for. And as more zebras got agitated, they started to demand for an apology. But many, including Singaporeans will agree with the zebra that they are not wearing pyjamas. The issue is how many believe what they said openly and what they actually believe but not saying? How could one make out of people who would not blink their eyes and tell you that the zebra did not wear pyjamas? The statement that Singaporeans are great pretenders is unlikely to be a myth. Neither are they stupid. Many are just not saying what they really know and believe. It is more a case of no point saying it or the time is not ripe to say it. And for those who are cornered to say something, their response is obvious. The zebra is not wearing pyjamas. And they will swear in court to say the same thing, for pragmatic reasons.

deception is good for the soul

Deception is good for the soul. NUS is now ranked 19th among the great universities in the world by Times. Everyone is happy. NUS is now a great university. No body bothers to question the criteria that put NUS up there. Only those that find the criteria rather silly would dismiss the findings as another crap. And Newsweek came out with a different set of criteria and the ranking were all different. The accounts people were very good at juggling numbers and creative accounting to make a company looks good. Academics can be equally brilliant to set their own criteria to make themselves look good. I too can set up a set of criteria to make NUS Number One. As long as NUS is Number One, that is all people want to know. NUS can even be Number One in the Guinness Book of World Record or in Sotong's Book of World Best, doesn't matter. NUS is Number One. Now the reality. Even if today NUS is ranked Number One and Cambridge or Harvard are ranked 50th and 51st, where would students choose to study? Or would people care that there is a NUS that is ranked Number One?

myth 71

'Singapore is short of talents' How can that be? I think no where can one find so many talents congregated in a small piece of land. And the kinds of talents we have, all multi skill and multi talented, will put many foreign talents to shame. Our talents can be political leaders, ceos, singers, dancers, sports champions etc all rolled into one. And they all performed multi taskings wearing 10 or 20 hats. Whew! They probably work 25 hours a day.

feelings of relative wellness

Feelings of relative wellness Singaporean parents are the most stressed by our education system. Not that they have to sit for the exams. It is the social stigma that they have to live with and be confronted by the daily comparisons of why their children are not in the Gifted Programme or in the top schools, or why they are in neighbourhood schools, normal stream or last in class. How could they bear such labels being hanged over their Gucci and Versace apparel and accessories? How could they say their children are in Longkang Besar Sec School? In earlier days, schools were ranked in a simple order of goodness. Then you have the two Raffles, ACS, SJI, the Convents etc hogging the limelight at the top. And any children that are not in the top 10 schools were considered non conversation topics. Better not to be seen or heard. And when newer concepts like SAP Schools and Independent Schools came about, a different kind of orientation of the mind map took form. Now children must be in such institutions to be recognized as good students, to give pride to their deserving parents. Under these two systems, only a small group of students could do their parents proud as our mind can only accommodate about 10 digits, the top ten. Even being top ten in class will be a good thing to talk about though the child is not from a fine school. Any bigger number is difficult to comprehend. Naturally not many parents could be found to be happy. All kinds of ranking that defines what or who is good or better will make those not so good feel lousy. Quite a normal response. So when the SAP and Independent Schools were taken out of the ranking list, more parents were made happier as another 10 new schools made it to the top of the packing order. Needless to say, parents of those in SAP and Independent Schools were still be as elated as ever. The next great thing that the Ministry came up with is the banding system. There are now 9 bands for the Special/Express Stream and four for the Normal Stream. And the beauty of this system is that 6 schools can be in one band. How would this make parents happier? With only 9 bands, we cannot expect parents to look at the top ten anymore. A little adjustment to read the top 3 or 4 bands as good schools will suffice. Bravo! Another 24 (6 x 4 bands) schools will now be socially acceptable as good schools. And in total, including all the SAP, Independent and Integrated Programme Schools, there will now be 30 to 40 that will make parents feel good instead of just 10 in the past. The Ministry could go on and add more schools to make parents feel more secure and less traumatised. One area is the sports or arts and music schools. Though these may not be top schools, they could do with a little rebranding. Instead of simply calling them sports or arts schools, call them Gifted Schools for special talents. Their students will then be recognized as talents, or students from Gifted Schools. There could also be schools like Eton or Schools for the Gentry Class to churn out young ladies and gentlemen who can appreciate all the finer things in life instead of boring academic grades. Not everyone needs to work for a living. Creative packaging could mean lesser emigration, less stress and more babies.