Frankly Speaking

Keynes vs Hayek rap

2010-01-27T16:41:00.002+08:00

This is too fun to ignore. Now if only somebody can tell me if I should brace for inflation or deflation.

MioTV: Big on screwing preschoolers

2010-01-11T01:19:00.001+08:00

I signed up with miotv last year for two channels only: CBeebies and Luli. It is not even one year yet, and yet miotv has managed to lose both channels with little warning. Yes, they have lost Luli rights as well, and they did not announce anything until the channel was dropped. miotv now has absolutely NOTHING to offer preschoolers. If I am not on contract, I will terminate my miotv subscription immediately. The set top box is now a white elephant.

Thank you, Singtel.

How Singapore appreciates a PRC talent who tried to integrate

2009-11-19T20:30:00.004+08:00

All the talk about PRC scholars remind me of my classmate in NUS. He was born and bred in China. He had arrived earlier with his parents and attended JC and did well. Unlike the PRC scholars, he spoke decent English and he had no problem mingling with Singaporeans. In fact, he prefers to hangout with us than those fresh from China, even though he is very brilliant and very driven, and that made him more like the PRC scholars than the Singaporean slackers (like me). In fact, he was so brilliant he was the "go to" guy for PRC scholars who needed help with school work.

And, even though he is strictly speaking a first generation PR, he served National Service.

An exemplary foreign talent, don't you think? A model new citizen? And for all the hard work he put in, what did Singapore offer him? Well, Singapore offered to screw him.

Since he was not recruited via "rigorous interviews" held in China, he was not entitled to apply for the PRC scholarship, even though he proved himself worthy by aceing the "A" levels. This is not the case, for example, for ASEAN scholarships. Irregardless of the route you took to enter NUS, as long as you are a non-Singaporean citizen of ASEAN, you can apply for the ASEAN scholarship.

And either because his Singapore citizenship did not arrive fast enough, or because some scholarship boards referred him to the PRC scholarships, he did not manage to get any scholarship at all. I had trouble knowing the details because he was always eye-bulging mad when he talked about it.

This is the stark reality of Singapore. Be a non-committal tourist like Zhang Yuan Yuan and enjoy the best of both worlds, or embrace Singapore and get screwed, like my friend.

He was incredibly bitter about his situation throughout his four years in NUS, and immediately upon graduation, found a great job in US and never returned since.

So, what is the lesson learnt here? Don't be stupid and serve NS, since Singapore will not appreciate it? The biggest benefit of the Singapore citizenship, ironically, is that it allows you to find a job and migrate to developed countries easily?

Honestly, I cannot help but feel that our whole foreign talent policies are being run by people who are not thinking very far.

Zaobao: Most PRC scholars are still here. Really?

2009-11-17T01:53:00.008+08:00

The Chinese arm of the Good News Times had a big multi-page coverage of the third batch of SM2 PRC scholars - the batch that joined NUS/NTU in 1999, celebrating their 10 glorious and infinitely happy years in Singapore. The key message seem to be "Of the 123 scholars, most of them are still here." This line is so important it was mentioned at least three times, including plastered at the front page, next to the headlines. The article went on to say that most of them are married here and most of them are either PRs or Citizens. (The monumental struggle to get the PR is just finding a job upon graduation.)

The interesting part is that although the article is full of precise numbers, and the scholars even created a commemorative booklet tracking the whereabouts of all 123, after 10 years of joyful and happy and fruitful living in Singapore, the Zaobao "journalist" did not seem the least bit interested to do some counting. What exactly do you mean when you say "most of them are still here"? 51%? 95%? I cannot find any number regarding that anywhere. Just sweeping comments like most, majority etc. To be fair, they did mention one person accepting a job overseas. I'm sure he is the only one, and he does that only after excellent contributions to the Singapore economy that went beyond the value of his scholarship and only worked in jobs that Singaporeans are too stupid to qualify.

For Singaporeans my age, we can still recall the government officials drilling into us that Singapore is a small island with limited resources, so we cannot afford to expand the universities to take in more Singaporeans, and the job market will never be able to absorb all the graduates. I'm not sure what changed, but suddenly Singapore does not have limited means as far as foreigners are concerned, and our job market is now infinitely elastic and can absorb as many foreign scholars as we throw at it, and the reason why Singaporeans cannot make it into university is because we are stupid as shown by our grades and will lower the standard. Well, why don't we subject the brilliant scholars to the same university entrance exams, instead of subjective "rigorous" interviews?

This small island with limited resources that has no money to award scholarship or even university places to local and have to hike fees regularly because local undergrads are consuming a disproportionate portion of the education budget, seems to have a different set of accounts when it comes to foreign students. At the cost of $120k each scholar, full fees covered, $6000 per year spending money, free medical insurance etc, the "journalist" did not think it was necessary to account to the taxpayers how many of those hundred thousands did not deliver on their promise of 3 years of work with a Singapore registered company. Even if this spending is a "proportionate" one, why not raise the length of their obligations every year, like how undergraduate fees must always go up?

Then again, if such scholarships are offered to Singaporeans, who would still take up the PSC scholarships that comes with far more constraints. From the article and from my anecdotal experience, many of the scholars have trouble staying employed. They are magnanimously allowed to take another undergraduate programme (another scholarship?!) or start a company or even suspend their obligations and work overseas. Not the kind of flexibility that local scholars can hope for.

And when it comes to calculating the length of contracts, the article conveniently added in the years of undergraduate study, which is unusual, for when scholarships are mentioned for locals, the study years are never counted. If counted this way, I think the A*STAR scholars would have contracts nearly two decades long.

On another page, PRC secondary school girls point out that they did not get into local schools through the "backdoor", and that they did not need to satisfy local exam requirements because they have passed many rounds of "rigorous" interviews before being granted the scholarship. Well, you tell that to the generations of Singaporeans who were mercilessly denied education opportunities because they failed their English or Mother Tongue exams, but were no less brilliant than the PRC scholars otherwise.

To top it off, some Vice President of the NTUSU with a PRC sounding name "Li Bo" repeated the lie that "at least 80% of the undergraduate places are reserved for Singaporeans". He is calling Minister Gan Kim Yong a liar, since he testified in parliament that there were 4218 foreign undergrads, out of a total population of 14,685 in 2007. That look way more than 20% or perhaps my maths is not so good. Did NUS/NTU drastically cut down the number of foreigners or drastically increased the local intake in two years? I doubt so. Then again, even Minister Gan Kim Yong needed two tries to get the number right.

Goal 2010: I'm sure slow to realising how dead it is

2009-11-15T17:05:00.003+08:00

News that New Zealand has gone batshit crazy because they have qualified for the FIFA World Cup for the first time in 27 years made me look up how Singapore was doing with our very own Goal 2010. You know, that target set by Goh Chok Tong, who was inspired by then World Cup champions France, fielding a team full of players who, in his own words, "dont look like Frenchmen". He must have went, "Eureka! Flood the Singapore team with foreigners and we will qualify for sure!" Can't say it is not a brilliant strategy. He already wanted to flood Singapore with foreigners then, and he wants some tangible results to shut the mouths of critics.

Besides, foreign players then like Abas Saad had a good reputation, at least with the fans. Despite getting into legal troubles, he is still here after all these years. This is something I wont expect from the likes of Li Jiawei, who is yearning to run even while the money is still flowing.

Apparently Singapore even fielded an ineligible foreigner from PRC. At least he did not run off like the other foreigners. Not that it mattered, since we lost the matches that went on to be forfeited and Singapore failed in the qualification bid a long time ago.

Before someone jump in and use the usual excuse "Singapore has a small population", do realise that Singapore's population has hit 5 million, while New Zealand is just around 4.3 million. At this point, the sycophants will point out that Singaporeans lack the football culture, which is sort of true. While football is without doubt the number one sport in terms of followers, we are a nation of passive football spectators. TV spectators for that matter, as tragic ticket sales at S-League matches does not get as much parliamentary debate as the TV rights to the English football league.

Instead of wasting money on foreigners, can we just put the money to help Singaporeans play football? Like, for example, absorbing the costs to open up football pitches of schools and polytechnics to the public? If Singaporeans have no space to play football, where are the football players going to come from?

And instead of funding S-league teams with barely any identity, S-league should be completely torn down and re-aligned along secondary schools, or clusters of secondary schools. Old secondary school rivalries will keep the interest alive. Just a few weeks back at a company function, I realised that of the very few Singaporeans working in my company, almost everybody were from brand name secondary schools. SJI, RI, ACS. And the old rivalries of these middle aged folks are very much alive. I am sure they would pay good money to see the best alumni players of these secondary schools pit against each other.

Counting the costs of male citizenship

2009-11-09T13:41:00.009+08:00

Salary.sg posted an article entitled "Your Citizenship is Worth $4,511 More Than a PR Per Year". I'm not sure how $4511 was derived, but a glance shows the calculation is full of errors. For example, almost every single grant mentioned is for children. Depending on how you see it, almost all sums should be divided by two, or even three if you take the child into account. Not to mention, at the "average" of one child per woman, how does one simultaneously enjoy child care subsidy (for preschoolers) and subsidized school fees (for school going kids)?

Even the $30-40k HDB grant does not go to a single citizen. It is the combined grant of two citizens. If you marry a PR or foreigner, or a citizen who is disqualified due to pay or owning private property, you get half of that.

That sum of $4511 is a gross exaggeration. Then again, it does not take into account measures that only the low income citizens enjoy, like Workfare, and one off grants like GST credits, Jobs Credit and HDB Upgrading subsidy.

Don't count the Utilities Save. Foreigners get that too.

But how about the costs of a citizenship vs PR?

How much does it cost a Singaporean man to serve NS?

Can we account just by the loss of salary over two years(or two and half years for old timers like me)?

How about families that are plunged into financial crisis because their sole breadwinner was called up for NS? It is not as rare as most people who had not served NS think. Better yet, administrative screwups resulting into two breadwinners of a poor family being called up at the same time. I know it has happened because I have seen it myself.

I was paid around $200 per month for my 30 months of NS. No 13th month bonus. No CPF. No OT pay. The pay is much more now, but hardly market competitive.

Because it neither tracked inflation nor market rates, those who served NS in the 70s and early 80s were paid much more, relatively.

Why does a country that boasts of first world status and out of this world ministerial salaries persist in paying our national servicemen poorly? If the country has no money to pay our national servicemen, the ministers should consider a pay cut. But no, they believe in paying themselves first. And they sure track market rates closely.

How about care for servicemen who are disabled due to service injuries? Singapore seems to have no system to care for disabled servicemen. MINDEF's attitude seems to be pay a lump sum up front, discharge the servicemen and run away as quickly as they possibly can.

How do you account for the intangibles? The opportunity costs of our two years in our prime? The inconveniences erected when we turn 11 to prevent us from escaping NS? The continued inconveniences as we have to plan our lives around our reservists obligations?

And how do we account for the letter that threatens to suspend our travel "privileges", when we forget to inform to MINDEF before we go overseas? Priceless?

What price, to account for the hostile work environment? My superior officer once threatened to kill me, wanted to slam my head against the wall. That, after yelling at me for half an hour. This is a job I cannot resign from. I cannot even apply for a transfer.

I am sure, knowing that my citizenship is worth $4511 over a PR makes me feel better. Right.

Despite the costs, serving NS is worth it, right? It's all about defending Singapore from an invasion of foreigners, right?

Lesser mortals should not hire foreign workers

2009-10-19T17:11:00.008+08:00

From No cap to employers' liability for foreign domestic worker's medical bills: MOM,

Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Manpower Ministry, Hawazi Daipi, said: "Employers who make the decision to bring foreign workers in Singapore would bear the cost of their care. Otherwise hospitals will run deficits which are ultimately paid for by the taxpayer."

only to be followed by

On whether part of the foreign maid levy could go towards paying for any excess beyond the maximum liability, MOM said as with other taxes collected, the levy is part of government revenue and not earmarked for specific expenditure.

Who exactly is the taxpayer again? If you call a tax, a levy, it is not a tax any more? So we ignore the upfront cost to the "levy-payers" but fret about the "ultimate" cost to the "taxpayer"?

Translation: I earn a million bucks a year. My helper's medical cost is not likely to bankrupt me. Good luck to the lesser mortals who earn so little. If you have the audacity to hire a foreign domestic worker, then you die is your business. The levy is just compensation for marring the landscape and polluting the air.

We welcome you bringing in high class foreigners though. We even allocated millions to help them "integrate". We love them deep deep, even though their income tax on average is barely more than the FDW levy, but because it is a tax, which is probably earmarked for something, rather than a levy, which is earmarked for nothing.

Remember this ex-PR?

2009-10-14T11:08:00.006+08:00

While the blogosphere fumes about Zhang Yuan Yuan, I would like to remind readers, the plight of another ex-PR, Ryan Goh. You can read about his story here at littlespeck.com. It ought to be something inconsequential, a worker fighting for better pay, but the company happen to be one near and dear to the MM, and the union in question happen to be the only one in Singapore not under NTUC control. And so Ryan Goh pays the price for meddling with the wrong union in the wrong company by getting his PR revoked, and worse yet, permanently barred from entering Singapore, which is a death sentence to his career as a pilot in the region.

For a lot of people fuming about Zhang Yuan Yuan, I guess they lack a little understanding on what a Singapore PR really is. There is nothing permanent in PRship. If a PR leaves Singapore for whatever reason, the PRship is subject to renewal upon re-entry. The PRship itself is subject to renewal every 8 years, if I recall correctly. In other words, it is just a longer term employment permit with a glorified name. However, it does comes with almost all citizenship perks, including CPF, subsidised public education, subsidised healthcare, rights to buy HDB flats. Although second generation male PRs are expected to serve National Service, it is optional. The male PR can choose to give up the PRship and leave Singapore for a few years. The male citizen, in contrast, will be placed on a leash from 11 years of age via travel restrictions to prevent him from escaping NS, and the leash gets shorter as he approaches 18. If a citizen still manages to escape and he will become a fugitive, to be arrested upon re-entering Singapore.

In other words, we expect little loyalty from PRs, and in Ryan Goh's case, we offer little loyalty to PRs as well. So the correct thing to be upset about, is not which country PRs pledge their allegiance; after all, they are still citizens of another country. The correct question to ask, is why Singapore offer PRs near citizenship privileges. It is almost as though we do not want them to be citizens, and maybe that is exactly the intention. As Ryan Goh's case shows, it is much easier to fix a troublesome PR than a troublesome citizen.

While Singapore government procrastinates, Singapore runs the risk of serious tensions

2009-10-12T11:25:00.015+08:00

I had been speaking up against Singapore's foreign talent policies since the late 90s, starting with NUS forums.

In those days, the foreign talent policies were really felt only by the Engineering and Science faculties and some hostelites, and I was called xenophobe and nazi by people who did not experience it first hand and had no idea what I was talking about.

On graduation, I chose to work in IT, and over the years, I had been at the forefront of the impacts of the foreign talent policies. I continued to speak up, and as usual, the sectors of Singapore that did not see many foreigners, continued to give me labels.

Then suddenly, Singapore's open door policy picked up pace, and the presence of foreigners can now be felt everywhere, and mainstream opinion swings from one extreme to the other overnight.

From early on, I recognised the problem was with the government's foreign talent policy, not the foreigners themselves.

I had been room mate, project mate, co worker, vendor, teacher (in my years teaching in a polytechnic), and now an employer, of foreigners.

I had also seriously considered migration. I recognise the challenges a foreigner faces in a foreign land. I also recognise the value a talented foreigner can bring, not just to the nation as a whole, but also to the company I work for and my own personal well being.

The problem is with Singapore government's bipolar schizophrenic policies. You cannot use two rulebooks for two groups of people living in the same country, and not expect to have problems.

If Singapore desires to attract foreigner to stay here long term and eventually become citizens, then it is a no-brainer to believe that the best foreign talent policy has to start with a good citizenship policy.

But yet there are too many sacred cows in Singapore's citizenship policies that Singapore would rather choose to piss off both Singaporeans and foreigners than to address seriously.

1) National Service

The Prime Minister recognises that imposing NS on new citizens will scare them away. Well, imposing NS on the children of new citizens and PR will also scare them away. If foreigners are spared the unpleasantness of NS, why impose it on Singaporeans? Does Singapore really need a massive conscript army? If we have no choice but to stick with NS, then I think it is only logical that those who serve NS should be entitled to significant privileges. In Israel for example, Israeli citizens of Arab descent are exempt from military service, but many choose to do so or they will have significant difficulties with their job hunting. Some would no doubt say this amounts to discrimination against the foreigners, and it is a tough choice to make. But left as it is, we have to tolerate NS discriminating against citizens and potentially harm a citizen's employment opportunities. As long as the Singapore government shy away from this tough decision, the citizens will resent the foreigners. The foreigners will feel the resentment, and for them, staying put long term in Singapore will never be attractive, not to mention the NS liabilities they will bring on their sons.

2) Education subsidies

At every fee hike in the local universities, one of the usual justification is that undergraduates unfairly consume a disproportionate share of the Education budget. That's a fair statement, until you encounter the foreigners who are 100% subsidized, given a living allowance and are given privileged admission to local hostels.
Are they not enjoying an even more disproportionate share of the education budget? Clearly, there are two rules being applied. Tough choices to be made, but the Education Ministry prefers to bury their head in the sand.

3) Employer CPF

If Employer CPF contribution is such a good thing, then everybody should enjoy it. If it is bad for foreigners, it must be bad for citizens too. So why do we exempt some foreigners from "enjoying" the employer's CPF? Why do we create a system that makes Singaporeans more costly to hire and retain?

4) Subsidised healthcare?

Subsidised healthcare in Singapore is a saddening joke. Take a look at the B2 wards, the most subsidised wards in public hospitals. They are not free, and you may have to be put through means testing to qualify for a bed.

It is almost as though the hospitals went out of their way to design an experience as painful as possible to the patients, presumably for unfairly consuming an excessive portion of the healthcare budget. Not only are beds constantly in shortage, no air-conditioning (with dubious cost savings to partition out a non-airconditioned wards in an otherwise fully air conditioned hospital) and worse yet, deliberately limiting the attention the patients can receive from doctors and nurses, to better be "fair" customers in the A wards who pay more. This is not subsidised healthcare. It is substandard healthcare. Would foreigners envy citizens for this "privilege"? I doubt so.

5) Overcrowding

The Singapore government has uncharacteristically mismanaged the overcrowding situation. The number of foreigners Singapore brings in is in precise control of the government, and yet it has failed to ensure there is adequate transport and housing for the new immigrants. The transport end can be partially explained by the Nicoll Highway collapse that delayed significantly the completion of the Circle Line. But more importantly, the vestiges of the rules barring Singapore bus services from competing with the rail services (to guarantee the viability of SMRT) still exists. Worse still, both bus companies also operate rail services, which will prevent them from seriously competing against rail services. LTA needs to seriously buck up and stop procrastinating from making tough decisions, and stop the fake competition between SBS and SMRT.

6) Singapore's treatment of migrant workers

It is an understatement to stay that we can treat the migrant workers a lot better. (I define migrant workers as the category of workers who attract a foreign worker levy). Unfortunately, the Ministry of Manpower turns a blind eye to the near abusive conditions the migrant workers are made to live in. One would think that after collecting the hefty foreign worker levy, the Manpower Ministry should do a lot more to ensure that the migrant workers have proper shelter, transport, wages get paid on time, and in general, not be easy targets for scams. When we tolerate such abuses, not only do our souls die a little, but think about the strata of Singaporeans who have to compete for jobs with the migrant workers who gets paid little, transported like cargo and live in crammed quarters. And I'm sure for some migrant workers, they are always hungrier than Singaporean. As in starving hungry. When we tolerate bad treatment for the migrant workers, Singaporeans get hurt too. Who wants to hire Singaporeans when there are truckloads of migrant workers who can be kicked around?

For foreigners, Singapore citizenship is totally unattractive, and Singapore will always be a stepping stone. Unless we choose to create a new citizenship class that permanently exempts them and their descendants from the unattractive aspects of Singapore citizenship, only those with no choice elsewhere will want to stay. Singapore will become a dirt trap of foreigners, keeping the scum while the best will move on.

As for Singaporeans, most can tolerate the situation now... as long as we have a job. But if citizen unemployment rises significantly or if wages fail to keep pace with the costs of living rocketing up due to resource competition with foreigners, I fear the unease with foreigners will turn into full blown irrational anger and start directing that anger at foreigners, and it is not going to do anybody any good.

Remember, the racial riots of Singapore's yesteryears were also conflicts between locals and new immigrants.

Foreign worker levy is a fine

2009-10-04T14:39:00.006+08:00

I have just received a letter informing me that I have to raise insurance coverage for my domestic helper. In principle, it is a good thing. I always saw it as a privilege to hire a live-in helper at a low rate, and I always find ways to pay more to my helper whenever I can afford it. I especially do not mind paying more for my helper's insurance, and I am glad I do not have to fret if I should give my helper a day off without making her wear a chastity belt. You see, the Singapore government, in their infinite wisdom, has decided it is no longer necessary to fine employers $5000 if their domestic helper get pregnant. I have no idea what employers do to be in compliance previously. Chastity belts, birth control pills or abortion pills? As a Catholic hiring a Catholic, my only option is chastity belt, but these stuff are kind of hard to acquire in a otherwise unbarbaric Singapore.

No longer needing to find a chastity belt, I have the free time to wonder about another barbaric rule by the Singapore government: the foreigner work and domestic worker levy. Why do we have to pay $170 (or more) levy a month to hire a domestic worker? To protect Singaporean workers? I am not sure how many Singaporeans compete for jobs with workers whose income attracts the foreign worker levy, but if the objective is to protect Singaporean workers, then it would only be logical to apply it to ALL foreigners, not just the lowest income workers? Why impose a tax against foreigners who do not compete with Singaporeans while giving a free pass to foreigners who do compete with Singaporeans?

Maybe it is an income tax then? At these rates, the taxes on the lowest income workers are easily around 35%, and are probably the steepest taxes imposed worldwide on the lowest income. On the one hand, Singapore is in danger of being a tax haven for the rich, but yet singles out the poor for high taxes. If we did not know Singapore government to be whiter than white, we would mistakenly think they are a reverse Robin Hood, robbing the poor to give to the rich.

For the steep taxes, one would expect some serious government services for such foreign workers. Then why do I have to pay for my helper's medical insurance and 6 monthly health inspection fee. She cannot make use of the services of our polyclinics. And if the worker absconds, would the government help? No. If the worker dies, would the government foot the costs to transport the body back home? No! The employer has to cover that. The government offers absolutely no services for the levied foreign worker, whatsoever, except for the privilege to work in Singapore.

So the logical conclusion is that it is a fine. It is a crime to hire someone who fails to qualify a higher work permit, and you get fined monthly.

So Singtel wins the BPL rights

2009-10-01T12:14:00.002+08:00

After losing the BBC channels, and apparently lacklustre take up of their Football Frenzy package, Singtel was forced to make a decision on the viability of mioTV. Instead of cutting loss, they have decided to double down and take the fight to Starhub.

Instead of letting Starhub win the bid at their threshold of pain, Singtel probably bid so high that they are going to bleed seriously for at least a year as they have to keep prices low enough to get customers to switch.

But a giant like Singtel can afford to bleed, for years, and it is the right strategy for a corporate giant to corner the market. After all, neither MDA nor the Competition Commission seem to care. When Starhub becomes a marginalised player like M1, Singtel will be free to charge as they please.

Whoever wins, the Singaporean consumer loses. MDA CEO will still collect his million dollar pay cheque.

Did you know? 4.0

2009-09-19T15:02:00.002+08:00

Singapore is mentioned.

via reddit.com

Singaporeans are fed, up with progress!

2009-09-01T12:10:00.013+08:00

According to a paper by Stephen J. Appold entitled Singaporean University Graduates in the New Century: Over-educated but Under-skilled?
dated 24 July 2004, the median monthly income in Singapore is supposed to look like this:


                     1980    1990    2000
Overall              $441    $1,204  $2,382
University graduates $2,175  $3,857  $4,827

Does that look like progress? It depends on what you are measuring against. Say, one plate of fried kway teow moved from about $1 to $2 from 1980 to 2000. Since income more than doubled in the same period, if you measure your well being on the affordability of eating fried kway teow, congratulations, because Singapore is making fine progress!

But being a ungrateful young Singaporean blogger, I am supposed to be able to find fault in the most flawless government in the world, and I try not to disappoint.

My father bought a 4 room flat in 1980 for $28,000. He paid in cash. No loan, no CPF. Today, identical flats in the same block are selling for over $310,000, despite running down 29 years of the 99 years lease. That's an inflation of over 10 times in 29 years.

Using the 4 room flat affordability as inflation adjustment, the median income graduate in 2009, who would earn roughly $6000 according to Salary.sg, is equivalent to someone who earned $600 in 1980, better than the non-graduate in 1980, but nowhere close to the graduates in 1980.

Therefore, as far as certain items are concerned, much of the "progress" in recent years has more to do with young families ramping up debt levels to keep up with the appearance of "middle income" rather than actual income increases resulting in better affordability.

It is also no wonder that double graduate income families do not seem to feel more financially secure than single non-graduate income families in 1980.

But let's focus on the number of plates of kway teows we can eat instead of depressing things. Especially if you are a property owning baby boomer who earns more from property price appreciation than your salary. Or if you are a senior civil servant or cabinet minister, whose pay is very well adjusted for inflation.

Good luck to young Singaporeans who do not own property. If this trend continues, in a few years time, it would be a highfalutin' idea for fresh school leavers to ~~own~~ lease 3 room flats.

Majullah Singapura!

The title was shamelessly stolen from the Today article that got mrbrown in trouble.

TED talk-Hans Rosling: Let my dataset change your mindset

2009-09-01T00:44:00.000+08:00

Singapore featured prominently. PAP would love this.

Low Thia Khiang is a disappointment

2009-08-31T11:37:00.005+08:00

News this morning tells of a landslide win for the Japanese opposition party, which leads me to think about the possibility of a PAP defeat at the polls in Singapore. Then I thought about who would be our new Prime Minister... there is only one likely candidate, but forget about it. Low Thia Khiang is not PM material.

It took me some time to catch up with NMP Viswa Sadasivan's speech in parliament, and I struggled to find anything incendiary. While the Minister Mentor seemed to have grossly overreacted, one has to remember that he is haunted by his long legacy of "pragmatism". Generals are always fighting the last war, and this old general still sees the world through 1950s lenses.

What is genuinely disappointing is Low Thia Khiang's response. At first sign of trouble, he chooses to wash his hands clean. The Pledge should not be brought up in parliamentary debates? Then when should the Pledge be used? In political rallies like he did during the last General Election? How many times have we seen him in parliament, on the verge of asking really piercing questions, only to back away at the last minute? I think he has done an excellent job in Hougang, *if* he thinks his role is just that of a very well paid village elder.

But as an opposition MP in the parliament, he has only done his job with only occasional brilliance, and even then, with great reluctance. Instead, we have to rely on PAP MPs like Tan Soo Khoon to play the role of opposition in the parliament.

If ever Singapore has a freak election, I seriously doubt he will even want to try to be Singapore's PM. I think he will wash his hands as quickly as he did with NMP Viswa's speech, and declare he will have nothing to do with it.

Despite widespread panning of PM Lee's electoral reforms to expand the number of Non Constituency MPs (NCMP), I think it is a constructive and necessary step.

We need new faces at work in parliament to give the electorate options, even if they have to start as powerless NMPs and NCMPs. (After watching Ling How Doong at work in parliament, who will want him to run a town council again?)

If we have to choose between the insipid and disinterested like Mr Low and Mr Chiam See Tong, or radical liberals like the SDP, it simply makes Singaporean democracy a bigger and more frustrating joke than it needs to be.

PS I am not related to any political party and will probably spoil my vote if I am forced to vote today.

What is that?

2009-08-26T11:02:00.001+08:00

God works in mysterious ways

2009-08-13T12:20:00.000+08:00

Singtel: Singapore's impotent corporate giant

2009-08-04T16:35:00.007+08:00

According to this article dated 8th June 2009, Starhub gently twisted BBC's arm last year, and BBC yielded immediately.

Singtel, can you at least be an honest eunuch and dont con subscribers into signing up two year deals with mioTV only to enjoy what they want for only three months? You already knew since LAST YEAR. It's one thing to cheat adults, it's quite another to cheat preschoolers.

Singtel, with your level of competency, why don't you just give up the whole mioTV business? It's inevitable you will be squeezed out, so why make Singaporeans suffer while you live in denial? Waiting for the regulator to intervene and save you from the abusive monopolist?

MDA is too busy funding businesses selling things nobody wants. And rapping, apparently.

Although only just announced, the decision to move from mio TV, which has around 53,000 subscribers, is believed to have been taken up to a year ago.BBC Entertainment's future on StarHub TV looked to be in jeopardy when the channel was omitted from StarHub TV's repackaging at the end of May 2008.

Mid-July 2008 saw the matter resolved and the following explanation issued jointly: "StarHub and BBC Worldwide Channels were finalising terms for the continued carriage of BBC Entertainment on StarHub Digital Cable. Negotiations have recently concluded, and we are pleased to inform viewers in Singapore that BBC Entertainment will continue to be carried by StarHub and is presently available as part of the Lifestyle Basic Upsize Group."

It is thought that BBC Worldwide Channels' commitment to bring BBC Lifestyle, BBC Knowledge and CBeebies to StarHub TV upon the expiration of the two-year exclusive deal with SingTel mioTV may have contributed to ensuring BBC Entertainment's future with StarHub.

I owe Professor Thio an apology

2009-08-03T21:35:00.001+08:00

Before my discussions with Fox, I had not directly seen or read Professor's Thio presentation in parliament, having only heard from second hand sources about her "flawed logic", which I assumed is of the same category as whybegay or SoloBear. Now that I have seen it for myself, I have to say I find nothing objectionable in what she said. She did not use the Bible to justify anything, and engaged a secular law in secular terms. She correctly predicted that homosexuals will infiltrate mainstream human rights organisations like AWARE, and try to impose the gay agenda onto our school system. I should have known better than to trust Singapore's "alternative media" to be objective. See it for yourself. She puts forth good arguments. No wonder the Gay Lobby is so terrified of her.

Christians beware: Offend the Gay Lobby at your own peril

2009-07-29T12:46:00.001+08:00

The Gay Lobby will not hesitate to abuse humans, in the name of human rights. Free speech is permitted, only when we say what the Gays want to hear.

Nuance, a so-called memo and threats ...
05:55 AM Jul 27, 2009
Letter from Professor Thio Li-ann

I WRITE to clarify a few points in "Former NMP calls off professorship at NYU"(July 24).

First, the online petition asserting I was an "opponent of human rights" over-simplistically assumes "gay rights are human rights".

Certain countries legally recognise the controversial idea of "gay rights", but this is not a universally accepted human right. Further, the idea of "gay rights" may cover anything from prohibiting workplace discrimination (which I support) to same-sex marriage (which I oppose).

Nuance is needed; simplification is sensationalistic.

Can a capitalist teach Marxism? Could someone who supports the death penalty (which many at New York University disagree with) teach human rights?

There is no settled theory of the source of human rights; many competing interpretations exist. There are core (prohibiting torture) and contested (same-sex marriage, euthanasia) rights.

Second, no 18-page rebuttal was sent to the NYU law faculty. I do not know who posted the so-called "18-point memo" circulating online. This was an internal email I wrote in response to a non-law NYU staffer's email copied to the Dean (who made no response) and others, strongly criticising my appointment.

This was just one of the hostile, often vulgar messages I received, some insulting my intellect, gender, ethnicity and country.

I sought to clarify misrepresentations and rebut potentially defamatory allegations made to personnel involved in the Global Faculty programme which invited my visit.

It is disappointing the NYU law dean would label my response "offensive" and "hurtful", while ignoring the offensive, hurtful and even threatening messages directed against me.

To say I was "disappointed by the hostility" minimises the virulence of the attacks I received. A cursory glance at the invective online explains why many friends worried for my safety.

An American NYU alumnus wrote to the NYU law dean (copied to me), saying he had the impression the dean was "not troubled by the kind of atmosphere" that I was "expected to endure" had I decided to teach at NYU.

Some NYU faculty, staff and students also sent supportive emails; a gay New Yorker apologised for the bullying tactics of certain activists who did not represent him.

Academic freedom dissipates in a hostile environment - by this I do not mean mere viewpoint disputation. Why prejudicially assume I would create "an unwelcoming atmosphere" in class, as opposed to politicking students or frosty faculty members?

Why assume I would not permit free discussion when it is "political correctness" which chills free debate? An email from a Harvard law graduate noted of this affair: "Things just got a little bit darker down at NYU."

MDA encourages Starhub to screw preschoolers

2009-07-18T23:44:00.005+08:00

Many years ago, I used to be a happy cable TV subscriber with Starhub. I loved the soccer coverage. Then the soccer subscription charges became ridiculous, so I thought, I opt out. But I still subscribe to cable TV because my son loved Disney Playhouse. Then one fine day, scrolling words on the TV told me that I will no longer get Disney Playhouse on my analogue set top box, and I must pay two bucks RANSOM a month just to watch that same channel. It was right at this time Singtel mioTV jumped into my lap, and although it took some getting used to I think CBeebies is better than Disney Playhouse.

With nothing left to interest me on Starhub, I returned the set top box and bid them saynonara. 18 months into mioTV, I thought, everything's working out fine. It's time for some commitment to take advantage of the discounts, so here I signed up a two year contract with Singtel for mioTV.

Three months into the contract, another set of scrolling words says CBeebies will no longer be offered on mioTV. I subscribe to mioTV for CBeebies and CBeebies alone. What I am going to do with the remaining 21 months of contract? If I want to pay up the RANSOM, it is going to cost me at least ~~25 bucks a month~~ MORE to get that ONE CHANNEL on Starhub.
EDIT: I'm so behind times. Minimum ransom to get CBeebies on StarHub is THIRTY FIVE DOLLARS. I'm sure some of it will go into MDA CEO's bonus.

Yes, this is clearly an abuse of monopolistic power by Starhub. I'm pissed with Singtel for letting this happen. Whatever happened to the clout of this powerful regional company? If it was BBC that screwed them, why dont they show some fangs? Singtel built the reputation of CBeebies from zero to a reasonable popularity. In fact, one could even say it was subzero, since the only programme I have heard of prior to signing up was Teletubbies, and that alone nearly convinced me not to touch CBeebies with a hundred foot long pole. But feeling blackmailed by Starhub prodded me forward.

Oh, I see how they are going to screw BBC, by offering TWO NEW BBC Channels that Starhub is not interested to carry. That will teach BBC a lesson. I'm sure there is no possibility that a few months into these new channels, they too will get popular and move to Starhub and leave mioTV subscribers high and dry.

But the people I am most bloody pissed with are the idiots from the Media Destruction Authority. You guys are supposed to set the rules of the game. The players are having drunken orgies on the pitch. What do you do? Hire external consultants to make decisions so no blame can be directed at you?

It's one thing to blackmail football fans. It's quite another to screw preschoolers, and their parents. MDA is so profoundly stupid and incompetent, it is no wonder they produced crap like this:

I dont know what is MDA's KPI, but it seems to have nothing to do with the needs of Singaporean pay TV subscribers.

MDA, brainless and spineless?

2009-07-12T15:35:00.010+08:00

My father and I are soccer fans, but we had not been subscribing to any cable football channel for many years now, because I refuse to pay the exorbitant and endlessly increasing subscription fees. But I do not blame StarHub. I blame MDA.

Why? I dont have the exact figures, but going by the quoted fees for the exclusive rights to the Barclays Premier League (BPL), divided by the subscription fees, by my guesstimate, is a very large proportion of StarHub's total subscribers. In other words, to secure the exclusive rights, StarHub is bidding near breakeven level. In other other words, dear football subscribers, even though it is costly, StarHub is really not making much money from you. In all likelihood, non-BPL football viewers are probably subsidising the BPL football viewers.

Anybody who knows some introductory economics would know that in a state of perfect free competition, the profit goes to zero. The stakes of cable tv in Singapore is higher. Most StarHub cableTV subscribers are in it for BPL and BPL alone. If Singtel beats StarHub to the BPL exclusive rights, StarHub CableTV will cease to be a viable entity with collateral damage to StarHub's commoditized businesses in mobile, IDD and broadband business. Therefore, Singtel will always try to force StarHub to bid at their threshold of pain, but let StarHub win it. That way, StarHub will continue to operate a profitless business that will continue to drain StarHub's ability to expand aggressively in other businesses. Notice you still cannot buy the iPhone from StarHub, despite suggestions that it would be available, late LAST year. And soccer fans will direct all their hate at StarHub. Wonderful win, win situation for Singtel.

It was not too long ago when soccer fans can watch free, live matches on free-to-air channel, SportsCity. But now that the football clubs are demanding more TV money, we know that this advertising supported will not work any more. But a large part of the subscription costs now is due to the bidding war between Singtel and StarHub, and it has been going on for years. What has MDA done all these years, other than sitting on their hands? Nothing much, except endless talk about how MDA is observing the situation. Oh, and finally, they "commissioned" some consultants to study the "competition issues". What kind of regulator needs third party "consultants" to tell them what they should do? They ought to be the experts and they should take the lead, instead of passing the buck to the consultants to whom blame can be shifted if things go wrong. If they want to act like taichi bureaucrats, then they should be paid like taichi bureaucrats, instead of acting and benefiting like they are some private sector employees with nice titles like CEO and matching perks.

So enough panning, here's my constructive suggestions:

1) Ban Singtel from bidding for football rights. Singtel wants to build their mioTV business, and is able to use their sheer size to directly and indirectly subsidize their BPL bid. Barring them will take the heat off StarHub and give them room to negotiate.

2) Stop pretending StarHub and Singtel are not Singapore state owned enterprises. Pretending to compete when it comes to overseas contracts only hurts the Singapore market. MDA as the regulator should knock their bloody heads together if they cannot learn to work together for the interests of Singapore. The very least MDA could do, is to make the telcos pledge not to bid for exclusive rights. Better yet, let ESPN win the rights and run the shows, and work out some deal beneficial for mutual survival, eg Manchester United exclusivity for StarHub and Liverpool exclusivity for Singtel, except when the two teams play against each other.

3) Give up trying to nurture the S-League. mioTV dropped in my lap and I had access to Italian Serie A for free. The match I skimmed through, was the one that featured David Beckham. Forcing people to watch S League, which is not even close to being second best by entertainment values, by intentionally making BPL watching expensive will not work.

MDA studying competition issues

I THANK Mr Tan Chak Lim for his letter on Monday, ''Managed' football telecast rights benefit consumers, content providers', and Mr Lim Phei Kiat for his letter on Wednesday, 'Subscribers paying too much for pay TV football'.

We note football viewers' concerns on higher subscription costs and having to subscribe to both SingTel and StarHub for different sports content.

Thus, late last year, we commissioned a study on competition issues in convergent media and telecoms markets. Both SingTel and StarHub were among the industry players interviewed by the appointed consultants in the course of the study.

The issues are multifaceted and include commercial agreements for broadcast of sports events, foreign content owners' rights, and Singapore's obligations to abide by international conventions that protect such rights.

We are pleased to update that this study is ongoing and various options are being explored. The Media Development Authority seeks the patience and understanding of TV viewers, and will update the public on the results of the review at an appropriate juncture.

Eileen Ang (Ms)
Head (Competition & Market Access)
Development Policy
Media Development Authority

Good riddance, Siew Kum Hong

2009-07-07T10:33:00.004+08:00

This morning brings the good news of Siew Kum Hong and his gay faction rejected from the parliament, and partially restores my confidence with the government.

As a Catholic in Singapore, I cannot say I have much love for the government. The Marxist Conspiracy/Operation Spectrum was a malicious and dishonest smear, and as far as I am concerned, directed at Catholics in Singapore. As the government never found the courage to set the record straight, there is not much reconciliation to speak of. For a Christian to speak up politically, one has to hide his/her Christian identity, or will risk having all sorts of accusations of thought crimes hurled at he or she.

As much as I disagree with Thio Li Ann, I feel she has a right to speak up without being accused of the crime of being a Christian. Somehow, the self-styled liberals in Singapore do not have any concept of this.

In stark contrast, the gays in Singapore, often comparing themselves with Jews under Hitler, suffer far less constrains. When was the last time anybody got in trouble with the law for peacefully advocating gay rights?

With this AWARE scandal, I have learnt that the liberals in Singapore, unfortunately, had been tainted by PAP rule. They may talk about human rights and freedom of speech, but are not the least interested in defending the rights of people who disagree with them. They have chosen to fight the devil by being a bigger devil.

While the AWARE takeover was orchestrated by just a few non-representative Christians, the entire of Christianity was attacked. While some of these are due to atheists taking advantage of the situation, the "liberals" seem to revel in the attention, and sent the lynching mob to organize boycotts of the employers of Josie, charging their opponents with frivolous thought crimes and intruding on their privacy, and acting like hooligans at the AWARE EGM.

If these "liberals" are put in government, I have little doubt that they will be even more ruthless in persecuting dissenters than the current government.

From what I have seen of Singaporebloodypore, TheOnlineCitizen, TheWayangParty and Singapore Democrats, I find it hard to feel safe to vote for the Worker's Party or SDP. Unless these parties clearly show that they are not hijacked by anti-christian liberals, I fear I may find myself forced into crossing the PAP box in the next election.

Open letter to the Prime Minister from an anonymous Singaporean:

2009-05-29T11:50:00.000+08:00

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing as a concerned Singaporean and a mother to request official scrutiny into press reporting of the AWARE saga.

I'll share my first-person observations at the AWARE EGM in relation to Straits Times coverage of the event.

1) My 18-year-old daughter and I went to the AWARE EGM on Saturday, 2 May 2009, to observe the proceedings of a civil organisation but the progression of events left us with much disquiet.

a) We noticed a large contingent of men upon entering the meeting hall as we were directed to the "overflow area" in Hall 403 where we sat in the front portion (we were among the last 200 to enter at 2.50pm after queuing from 1.30pm). The men formed about a quarter of the meeting, occupying seats in the back half of the 'overflow'. My daughter observed that this was a meeting for a women's association and was surprised at the substantial male turn-out. I reserved my comments.

b)We were accosted by ear-deafening 'boos' and jeers as we passed the section, but realised that they were not directed at us as much as at the speaker onstage. We were quite unable to hear the opening speech being given by Ms Josie Lau, then President of AWARE, as the heckling went on unabated in tenor and base. In fact, the aggression was so vehement that my daughter was in tears from the sense of intimidation and oppression, even though the hooliganism was not directed at us.

c) It could be clearly observed that a number of men in the front of the section were attired in white 'We are AWARE' t-shirts or pink tops.

d)There were also more than 20 foreign men and women in their midst.

e)Then as the meeting progressed, more than half of them moved to stand with and around the 'old guard' of AWARE, and at the floor speakers' area, continuing to disrupt the proceedings despite calls for order.

e) What really flabbergasted us was that soon some of these associate members with no voting rights took the stand to proudly declare their homosexual status to loud applause from the 'old guard' camp as they spoke in support of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme. In fact, it was impossible for ordinary members like me to try to ask any questions on the floor (as I tried to queue up to do so) as the 'old guard' with half of them men effectively 'barricading' the area and monopolising the microphones in a raucous commotion.

We came away from the whole event rather disillusioned by AWARE and what it professed to stand for. They may still be helping women, marginalised or needy, but they are also involved in the political agenda of some minority groups, even with covert foreign interference.

2) I'm also surprised and deeply troubled that the reporting in The Straits Times has not been honest in presenting the full picture to the public, especially concerned parents following the AWARE saga. There was a concerted effort by both the press and TV coverage not to mention the significant presence of the homosexual community. If I had not been there, I would never have known the truth.

a) In fact, I witnessed the main reporter responsible for blowing up the whole AWARE story (Wong Kim Hoh) hobnobbing with the homosexual fraternity at the EGM.

b) Some members of the press and TV were candidly jubilant as they celebrated the passing of the 'no confidence' vote by punching their fists in the air and hugging the 'old guard' they were standing with.

c) In the sweep of fervent support, the constitutional amendments were also made to allow men and foreign

women full voting rights (in a local women's association that makes the CEDAW report on the state of women in Singapore). In the perspective that such an amendment was thrown out in the previous AGM, the motives may be called into question. The press made no mention of this important development.

I question the cover-up in the press.

In review of newspaper coverage of AWARE developments, I'm also beginning to think that press focus on the sensitive issue of religious involvement was but a calculated red herring thrown out to manipulate public sentiments.

Sir, I am pleading for the authorities to look into this matter as I am becoming increasingly alarmed that minority groups with a political agenda may not have just reached its grasp into a vulnerable women's group, and through it attempt to distort our children's views on sexuality, but has actually infiltrated the press to block out news and prevent the public from accessing the truth. I actually feel frightened that the press in Singapore can attempt to shape my views as it wishes by misinformation or partial information.

from journalism.sg

Who is neutral, really?

2009-05-25T11:36:00.007+08:00

Over the weekend, there is more coverage on the AWARE gay advocacy scandal, and Dana Lam, interviewed in Zaobao, the Singapore Chinese daily is totally unapologetic about AWARE's gay advocacy in the MOE CSE. Even Marthia Lee backpedalled a little by saying the CSE instructor manual had been a little careless in the wording, while Dana Lam continues to rubbish the whole idea that there was any tinge of gay advocacy in AWARE's CSE.

And this Channel News Asia "journalist" Pearl Forss, who was seen cheering emotionally at the announcement of the voting outcome of the AWARE EGM, inserts another pro-AWARE old guard mantra into her "report" of the MOE press release regarding sex education, that,

"Homosexuality is seen as neutral in the AWARE CSE."

It is clearly her insertion because no other reports I have seen has that statement. She is clearly showing her pro-old guard bias by repeating that mantra.

And from what source did they get that mantra from? Apparently, they think they have collected a "slip" from their favourite smearing target, Thio Su Mien.

The problem is

1) Thio Su Mien is an extremist and does not represent me. I'm sure a lot of parents angry about the AWARE CSE would agree with me.

2) Pro-gay extremists tries to draw parallels between them and the civil rights movements in the US or the Jewish Holocaust, as though we segregate our beaches according to sexual orientation or round up gays in concentration camps, which cannot be further from the truth. Singapore has been very tolerant of gays. But to them anything short of gay pride parades and anal sex clinics in secondary schools would probably be seen as "neutral".

3) Like the pro-gay extremists, people like Thio Su Mien believes there is no middle ground. To her, being neutral about homosexuality is probably enough reason to burn in hell.
Getting Thio Su Mein to say the AWARE CSE is neutral means nothing.

Anybody who read the instructor's manual for AWARE CSE knows that it is far from being neutral with words like "Homosexuality is perfectly normal".

If the AWARE CSE is seen as neutral, there will not be any controversy.

AWARE as unrepentant and extreme as it is, should be permanently banned from access to all public services, not just MOE.

To fight the gay activists is to be anti-science?

2009-05-10T16:50:00.002+08:00

One of the favourite argument of the gay activists is to smear dissenters to be anti-science, flat earth, creationist types. This is obviously an underhand bullying tactic.

Science does not have any conclusive opinion on homosexuality. And even if it does, one can never rule out that it merely a fad that may not stand the test of time.

Take lobotomy fro example. It used to be an accepted scientific method for treating schizophrenia in the early 20th century. Even the sister of John F Kennedy underwent the treatment. Let me describe one specific type of lobotomy: "transorbital lobotomy"

it involved lifting the upper eyelid and placing the point of a thin surgical instrument (often called an orbitoclast or leucotome, although quite different from the wire loop leucotome described above) under the eyelid and against the top of the eyesocket. A hammer or mallet was then used to drive the leucotome through the thin layer of bone and into the brain. The leucotome was then moved from side to side, toto sever the nerve fibers connecting the frontal lobes to the thalamus.

Does it make your stomach turn? I like to think I am a man of science, but even when science is cock sure, it can be dead wrong. If a Christian were to speak up against lobotomy in that era, one can be rest assured that he or she will be attacked as an anti-science flat earth creationist. If you believe in God, then you should trust God to have placed the spark of enlightenment in your heart, in your conscience. Using the Bible to fight Science is a losing proposition. God gave us a big brain for a reason, and it is intellectual laziness to revert to the Bible when we fight what we know in how heart, is barbarism.

The Gay Strawman

2009-05-10T03:10:00.004+08:00

Gay advocates, smarting from their defeat after their gay agenda was exposed by the scandal that is the AWARE CSE, are resorting to strawman arguments to defend their lies.

It goes along this: People who oppose the supposedly neutral AWARE CSE are influenced by their American Christian Right. The American Christian Right advocates homophobia and abstinence-only sex education, faith based conversion of gays etc etc, which are faulty in one way or another. Ergo, parents who complain about the AWARE CSE must also have the same faulty reasonings, as well as imposing religious fundamentalists views on the secular society.

First of all, it will take quite a tool to think the AWARE CSE is neutral. Why was the instructor's manual confidential? If the manuals were shown to the principals, do you think any principal will greenlight their gay agenda?

Second, of the thousands who complained, there are plenty of Buddhists, Muslims and free thinkers. To assume all these Singaporean parents who would otherwise be slimed as apathetic to be influenced by American Christian Right gives a little too much credit to the American Christian Right.

Remember, Thio/Josie could barely find any support outside their church, or the ex-new team wouldnt have looked half as silly.

Third, I have yet to see any group emerge to collectively represent the viewpoints of any significant group of the outraged parents. Only MOE knows exactly the composition of each parental complain. To assume the parents pursue the exact same agenda like that pursued by the Christian Right, for eg abstinence only education or hostility to gays is simply disingenuous if not downright dishonest.

As usual, it is just part and parcel of the dirty tricks the gay activists use to censor dissent.

Gay movement now resorting to terrorist methods

2009-05-08T12:17:00.001+08:00

An envelope containing white powder was sent to the Church of Our Saviour office at Margaret Drive, in Queenstown, last Thursday.

The envelope was addressed to the senior pastor of the Anglican church but it was not known if the name of the pastor, Reverend Derek Hong, was indicated.

No Escape: Male Rape in US prisons

2009-05-07T22:12:00.005+08:00

I've been sentenced for a D.U.I. offense. My 3rd one. When I first came to prison, I had no idea what to expect. Certainly none of this. I'm a tall white male, who unfortunately has a small amount of feminine characteristics. And very shy. These characteristics have got me raped so many times I have no more feelings physically.

Gay rights activists often repeat the mantra that homosexuals are born that way. You cannot change either way. I like to dispute that. Take a look at the report published by Human Rights Watch on male prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse in the United States.

What is interesting is this

vast majority of prison rapists do not view themselves as gay. Rather, most such rapists view themselves as heterosexuals and see the victim as substituting for a woman.
...
Perpetrators of rape typically view themselves as heterosexual and, outside of the prison environment, prefer to engage in heterosexual activity.

Can homosexuality be a choice? The report seems to imply so, for some men. So, should prisoners be given CSE on the safe and healthy way to engage anal sex, since "studies" have shown that abstinence-only education does not work?

Get your copy of the AWARE CSE at Tampines Court blog

2009-05-07T12:23:00.002+08:00

After all the talk about transparency and openness, the AWARE old guard didnt seem to have put their CSE online for all to judge for ourselves. Instead, they try to trivialise the concerns by saying the offending sections are not shown to the students or the homosexual parts are a small proportion of the whole course, or that the parts about anal sex or pre-marital is very neutral. The truth is anything but. Judge for yourself, take a look at the Tampines Court blog. That blog has a link to the originals.

As much as I dislike Josie/Thio and their methods, the AWARE old guard is just pot and kettle.

My problem with homosexuality II: What gays want

2009-05-07T11:05:00.002+08:00

What does the gay movement really really want? They had worked had to create the perception that gay people are really just like the rest of us, but with special needs that are consensual and harms no one. But is that the complete truth?

4) Why GLBTQ and not GLBTQI

The I here refers to incest. Take a look at an example of "incest activism" here: Brother and sister fight Germany's incest laws. For all the talk of being tolerant and inclusive, the gay activists and their AWARE comrades are noticeably quiet about incest. Why dont these liberals fight for acceptance of this "alternative lifestyle" as well? I'm talking about mutually consensual incest, not Joseph Fritzl. Do they find incest "unnatural"? Are they suffering from traditional moralistic hangups, perhaps from the Abrahamic religions?

Do they think abstinence education will be effective for siblings sexually attracted to each other?

Who is the victim in consensual incestuous sex? If the increased risk for having children with birth defects is the main concern, all the more we need a good proper sexuality education to ensure birth control is done correctly, right?

Besides, couples do not have to be siblings to be at a heightened risk for having children with genetic defects. Therefore, such couples should be treated the same way as incestuous ones?

Or do they totally accept incest as a "natural and healthy" but recognizes that society abhors such behaviour and choose to ignore the needs of incest community, to save their self interest?

5) Gays dont really want to repeal 377A

It is a silly law. It attracts the sympathy of moderates, maybe even some conservatives. It creates an impression of an oppressed community.

However, in it's current state of no active enforcement, it does encapsulate the attitude of Singapore: As long as gay sex is discretely, privately, consensually done between gay men certain of their identity, there should be no need to fear the law.

It does leave open the possibility of blackmail and extortion, but so do heterosexual relations. It's not unheard of for women to regret having sex and falsely accuse the men of rape. Or other freakish circumstances, like police investigations on unrelated charges that reveal consensual gay sex taking place.

I think the law needs fine tuning, and is best left to people with smarter minds than me.

Until then, 377A will remain a powerful rallying cry for gays to lobby for more power and rights, and they are not in a big hurry to repeal it.

6) Gays don't really want to get married

Despite all the lobbying especially in the US, the gay community dont really believe in marriage as an institution. You can blame the homophobic society pushing them to extreme liberalism, but the gay community has no beliefs in monogamy, despite their attempts to manufacture an image of being just like regular folks who want to settle down, get married in a church and raise children.

Take a look at the first article on yawningbread.org regarding the AWARE takeover. Alex Au digresses in that article to talk, not about gay rights, but on the failure of abstinence education. Everybody sees the world through their tinted lenses, and clearly he wants as much sex with as many men as he can get, with consent of course. For such hedonists, marriage is an inconvenience.

So why do they still lobbying so hard for gay marriage? In the US, married couples have significant tax advantages, so there is a financial motivation. But more importantly, they want to chip away traditional concepts of relationships, and re-create the world in their own image and ideals.

I dont share the moral/amoral clarity of the Bible fundamentalists or liberal extremists. I find homosexuality a complex and delicate issue, often with no right or wrong answers that can last the test of times and changing attitudes.

Just as I dont think Bible fundamentalists are Christians, Christians should not succumb to the smearing tactics of the gay movement to either choose to support them or be labelled a "fundie", or a "sheep".

The gay movement dont really believe in being open or tolerant. The recent events show that these gay activists have no tolerance for Christians.

My problem with homosexuality

2009-05-06T10:07:00.002+08:00

There is an obvious attempt by gay activists in Singapore to bully Christians into supporting their cause. I don't think Christians need to succumb to their smearing. However, when speaking to non-Christians, Christians should be mindful not to invoke the Bible, because it carries too many baggages. There are many secular objections that is seldom brought up in the debate, and I will attempt to cover some:

1) Homosexuality is natural

Arguing that homosexuality is unnatural is a losing proposition. Homosexuality existed throughout human history and is present in the animal kingdom. That said, there are a lot of other natural behaviour that most societies abhor, like sexual attraction to children or corpses.

Acts that are also present throughout human history as well as the animal kingdom.

Just because an attraction is natural does not mean it is acceptable. If a paedophile or necrophile fail to abstain from their natural attraction, we lock them up. Would the gay activists argue that abstinence education is useless in this case, and therefore we should include in our sexuality education the safe way for having sex with children and corpses?

The gay activists draw the big distinction with the presence of mutual consent, but the age of consent is such an arbitrary and artificial concept that varies between jurisdictions.

And how does one obtain consent from a corpse?

2) Homosexuality is not a choice, most of the time

Gay activists like to point out they are born like that. They did not choose it as a lifestyle and therefore cannot choose to become heterosexual. Like all acts of advocacy, the mantra should be kept simple, even if reality is not.

I personally buy into the point of view of controversial sexuality researcher Alfred Kinsey that we are all born bisexual. The difference is only in the degree of attraction.

So while there are some gays who cannot choose to be heterosexual, there are plenty more who can. As this muddies up their position, you will notice that gay activists dont like to talk about bisexuals.

3) Homosexuals seek to expand their community

Bearing the previous point in mind, one should remember that all advocacy groups seek to expand their membership, and the gay community is no exception. So even as they self-righteously pan Christian evangelists for imposing our beliefs on non-Christians, they too are trying to impose their sexual liberalism to a moderate world. Just take a look at how hard yawningbread.org tries to draw audiences from diversified backgrounds, including pretending to be anti-PAP since it draws eyeballs, only to sneak in photos of naked men on the unsuspecting reader from time to time.

It is a myth that gays in Singapore are oppressed. Most Singaporeans think that the gay activists are fighting to be left alone in their own private space. But they already have that space. What they really want, is to impose their beliefs into the public space, into your living room, into the classrooms and attract as many people as possible to experiment.

What makes a mostly unenforced Section 377A so dangerous for them is that, while they are "cultivating" an uncertain quarry, the quarry may regret and file a police report, which will trigger enforcement. To be safe, gays will have to limit their cruising to only those who already self-identified as gay, and they don't like that.

To be continued.

Disappointed with MOE

2009-05-06T02:01:00.003+08:00

As a parent of two young boys, I have to say that I am very disappointed that MOE allowed gay activists to infiltrate their sexuality education programme via the AWARE backdoor. Even when AWARE didnt have a gay agenda, it is bad enough that they leave something so controversial to a bunch of extremist feminists.

"Here are some extracts. Please note this information is targeted at 12 year olds
.
Page 13
.
1. Anal sex - can be healthy or neutral if practiced with consent and with a condom.
.
...
14. Practicing how to use a condom.
.
15 Now we will demonstrate and practice how to use condoms (5 penis simulators are provided,)
.
6 Trainer will demonstrate the use of a condom and invite participants to practice."

What I have learnt lately

2009-05-05T10:40:00.003+08:00

In the same chapter where some claims Jesus heals a gay lover of a centurion, Jesus says this: "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."

That's exactly how I feel now, as a Christian/Catholic in the Singaporean blogosphere.

If Singapore was nothing more than a fishing village in 1965...

2009-04-21T11:51:00.002+08:00

Typical PAP supporters like to say that Singapore was nothing more than a fishing village before Lee Kuan Yew came and transformed it.
Then what is this? Was Raffles Hotel a gathering place for fishermen?

I think PAP supporters tend to confuse Lee Kuan Yew with Stamford Raffles a lot, especially those who like to talk about the "Post 65" generation being "soft". Among other things, PAP was already running Singapore in 1959. Shouldn't it be "Post 59" generation? Or would that exclude too many people who are classified everywhere else in the world as "Baby Boomers"? The greediest generation.

Grumblings about LG's LG60 series TV

2009-02-04T10:44:00.003+08:00

In case anybody is wondering, I'm still alive. Just not blogging that frequently. But after doing so much research that led me to a deadend, I feel obliged to write this down somewhere.

I am in the market to look for a LCD TV. My personal stimulus package for the world economy. After doing much reading, I have singled out LG, and it particular the LG 37LG60. It's supposed to be everything I need at a reasonable price. Except of course, it is not.

You see, if you buy the 37LG60 is North America, you get a set that comes with Full HD and 120Hz Trumotion. Now I know these features may not be useful at all, these are things that are nice to have, and TVs sporting these features cost a premium. And in North America, the 37LG60 is the cheapest boasting these features.

However, if you buy the same LG60 series TV in Singapore (or most of Asia, it seems), you get a different beast. The smaller ones, the 32LG60UR and 37LG60UR, are not Full HD. The larger ones, 42LG60FR and so on, are Full HD. All of them do *NOT* support 100/120Hz Trumotion, unlike their North American counterparts.

So, if you see a 37LG60UR in Singapore, and google about it, the only useful reviews you can find are that of North American sets. No useful review of the Asian set seems to exist. And since they are different in at least those two aspects, you cannot assume there is any similiarity in the two sets.

This problem does not seem exclusive to the LG60 series. Apparently, in North America, the LG70 series is advertised to support 120Hz Trumotion, but the 32LG70 does not. At least there is no such feature in the menus, unlike in larger sets.

The shrewd LCD buyer will probably be making fun of me now, noting that the only reason why people are confused is because they cant see the difference, which I agree.

But I cant help but feel cheated by LG for intentionally obfuscating the feature sets of TVs that are only alike in the bezels and stands, and in doing so command a price premium for the semi-ignorant buyer like me.

How many foreign students enrolled in MIT?

2007-07-20T23:37:00.000+08:00

When questions about foreign students in local universities are raised, Education Ministry officials and journalists from the nation building press like to quote MIT. The latest attempt was made by Pearl Forss:

Top universities in the world, such as MIT, have more than 40 percent foreign students

I don't know where she got her numbers from, but according to wikipedia, only 9.2% of the undergraduate student population are foreigners. The figure rises to 39.3% for graduate studies. It is clearly UNDER 40% no matter how you count. She is talking about Massachusetts Institute of Technology right, not some other MIT?

If you think wikipedia is unreliable, go do your own calculation using statistics straight from MIT:

1. Go to this one for the size of the undergraduate and graduate population: MIT Facts 2007: Enrollments 2006-2007

2. This one for the foreign students: MIT Facts 2007: International Students and Scholars

And MIT has one of the highest proportion of foreign students of all US universities, and is clearly the highest among the top US universities. Furthermore, the biggest group of these international students are Canadians, for a university just a few hours drive from the Canadian border.

Instead of justifying local universities having 20% foreigners at undergraduate level and 50% at graduate level, the MIT experience shows that we are way ahead of international norms.

Foreign undergrads: Is 20% a target or a cap?

2007-07-20T22:48:00.000+08:00

When asked about the numbers of foreigners in local universities, officials from the Education Ministry like to point out that the number of foreign undergrads are capped at 20% of the total student population. But is it really a cap?

In 1998, then Minister of Education Teo Chee Hean delivered a speech at the Fulbright Association entitled "SINGAPORE AS A HUB FOR HIGHER EDUCATION". In the speech, the Minister makes it clear that it was the Ministry that pushed the universities to reach the 20% TARGET. Left to their own devices, the proportion of foreigners would languish at 10%. And how do the universities meet this quota given to them? Well, at the taxpayer's expense, they have to send teams all over Chinese and Indian cities, scouring the high schools for suitable candidates. What if their command of English is not up to scratch? Nevermind, backdoor admissions, no need to attempt the GP. What if they cannot afford? No problem, all expenses from air ticket to lodging to lifestyle expenses will be covered by the Singaporean taxpayer. Just fly to Singapore so they can fill their quota. What they do afterwards is none of the universities' business. Which is why they do not stay. About 40% of all foreign undergrad scholarship holders leave Singapore without working for a single day. Which is how Singapore is building up a reputation in China as a nation of foolish suckers with too much money.

Now that the numbers are met and they no longer need to increase the number of foreign students dramatically, the officials now turn around and say it is a cap. A cap they don't take too seriously, it seems, at least for this year's admissions.

A quote from the speech:

NUS, NTU and their predecessor institutions have been receiving a natural inflow of foreign students from the region. However, with the establishment of more universities throughout the region and the urgent need to expand higher education opportunities in Singapore, the attraction of foreign talent was not seen as top priority for NUS and NTU. The inflow of foreign students stagnated at around 10% of the undergraduate intake.
But a world-class university cannot be built upon the natural talents and abilities of a small country with only 3 million people. Top universities go in search of the best talent in the world, especially at the postgraduate level. For example, in MIT, up to one-third of the postgraduate students in the engineering school are international students.
NUS and NTU have to do likewise. They have set a target of filling 20% of their undergraduate places with foreigners. Fortunately for us, NUS and NTU can do this while expanding intake so that no qualified locals will be displaced. At the same time, to make it more attractive for foreign students to study in Singapore, tuition fees have been reduced. In 1996, the fees for foreign students were 1.5 to 2 times those for Singaporeans. From this year, foreign students pay only 10% more than locals.
This target of 20% gives a push to the two universities to get out of Singapore and find the best foreign students they can. This is a useful discipline, as a constant reminder to the universities that Singapore thrives on being open to the rest of the world.
The presence of foreign students adds some "fizz" to the student body in Singapore universities. The students draw upon different experiences and look at problems from different perspectives. There is no better way to promote critical and creative thinking among our young than to be confronted with different view-points and ideas.
I am pleased to note that NUS and NTU have marketed themselves aggressively in the past years and are on track to reach their target of 20% foreign intake. For the academic year 1998/99, preliminary figures (up to 20 Jul 98) indicate that NUS and NTU have recruited more than 1,500 foreign students which make up 16.5% of their undergraduate intake. 70% of these foreign students are taking up courses in Engineering, Computers and Science. It is particularly important for Singapore to build up centres of excellence in these areas in order to catalyse the growth of high technology industries and ensure an adequate supply of qualified persons.

MOE clarifies foreign undergrad admission numbers: numbers still seem wrong

2007-07-20T01:06:00.000+08:00

When MOS of Education Gan Kim Yong reported in parliament that only 987 foreign students got into local universities this year, I knew immediately it had to be some mistake or some massive policy U-turn, but I did not comment on it because I did not have anything useful to add to what Lucky Tan, Ned Stark and Leong Sze Hian had eloquently written, and I was hoping that with a new PM, MOE may have actually reduce the number of foreign students to cater for Singaporeans.

But alas, MOE uncharacteristically decided it was necessary to do some OT and work pass 5pm to issue a press release as late as 9pm to clarify that the numbers were wrong. (This is after all, a country that has a blood bank that does not even want to talk to people who was misled into thinking a loved one will bleed to death if they fail to make good the blood bank's losses, 5 minutes before the start of official working hours)

And guess what, the numbers are still wrong. MOE now claims the actually number of foreigners admitted is 4,218. The MOS of Education Gan Kim Yong had earlier claimed that there was a total of 14,685 places in the three universities. They also claim there is 20% "cap" for foreigners, and not admitting every single one of the 19,000 full-fee paying foreigners, irregardless of their academic ability, is "costing" the nation $480 million dollars in missed revenues.

Guess what:

4218 / 14685 = 28.7%

Surely there is yet another mistake that needs to be clarified.
Let's say the 14,685 were all for locals only (locals is yet another government attempt to fudge the PR numbers with the citizens)

4218 / (14685+4218) = 22.3%

So, either the 20% cap is really a flexible round down, or there are many more caveats that a simple peasant like me can never comprehend.

This is not a foreign student problem any more. I do not know if the MOS of Education Gan Kim Yong was trying to play with semantics or received faulty information / typo error etc. I hope it is the former, because for someone in his position, he should have instantly recognised that 987 is a ridiculous number. If he does not even have a good gut feel for the numbers, sigh...

"Close to 20% of foreign students who apply for local universities get in
By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 19 July 2007 2149 hrs

SINGAPORE: Close to 20 percent of foreign students who applied to local universities were accepted this year.

The Ministry of Education had said in Parliament on Tuesday that the figure was only 4.3 percent, and only 987 foreign students got into local universities this year.

In fact, out of the 23,000 foreign students who applied for local universities, the actual number admitted was 4,218.

The Ministry explained that the 987 figure only referred to foreign students who had obtained GCE 'A' level or polytechnic qualifications in Singapore.

It has capped the number of government-subsidised foreign students in Singapore at 20 percent because it does not want schools to expand too quickly.

However, this cap makes it difficult for universities to take in more full fee-paying foreign students.

Full fees for foreign students enrolled in non-lab courses in local universities are about S$26,000 a year.

This year, nearly 19,000 foreign students applied for local universities and did not get in, which translates to over S$480 million in lost revenue annually."

Dan Dennett on dangerous memes, on TED.com

2007-07-14T19:04:00.000+08:00

Here's one of those talks that can change your view of the world forever. Starting with the deceptively simple story of an ant, Dan Dennett unleashes a dazzling sequence of ideas, making a powerful case for the existence of "memes" -- a term coined by Richard Dawkins for mental concepts that are literally alive and capable of spreading from brain to brain.

Everything we know about AIDS in Africa is wrong: Emily Oster on TED.com

2007-07-14T17:09:00.000+08:00

Emily Oster, a University of Chicago economist, looks at the stats on AIDS in Africa -- and comes up with a stunning conclusion: Everything we know about AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa is wrong. We look for root causes such as poverty and poor health care -- but we also need to factor in, say, the price of coffee, and the routes of long-haul truckers. In short, she says, there is a lot we don't know; and our assumptions about what we do know may keep us from finding the best way to stop the disease. (Recorded March 2007 in Monterey, CA. Duration: 15:45.)

Blade Runner: Final Cut in theatres this fall!

2007-07-12T16:25:00.000+08:00

Based on a novel written by Phillip K Dick, directed by Ridley Scott, this third theatrical release of the cult classic features new scenes and new special effects.

via The Big Picture

Spin

2007-07-10T17:33:00.000+08:00

Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, documentary filmmaker Brian Springer captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George Bush talks to Larry King about halcyon -- all presuming they're off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality.

MADtv: Apple's new product

2007-07-05T17:36:00.000+08:00

A third US carrier, the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise Strike Group is speeding towards the Persian Gulf

2007-06-26T15:36:00.000+08:00

"The USS Enterprise CVN 65-Big E Strike Group will join the USS Stennis and the USS Nimitz carriers, building up the largest sea, air, marine concentration the United States has ever deployed opposite Iran.
...

The “Big E” leads a strike group consisting of the guided-missile destroyers USS Arleigh Burke DDG 51, USS Stout DDG 55, Forrest Sherman DDG 98 and USS James E. Williams DDG 95, as well as the guided missile cruiser USS Gettysburg CG 64, the SS Philadelphia SSN 690 nuclear submarine and the USNS Supply T-AOE 6"

via DEBKAfile

Bob Dylan Wrote Every Pop Hit of the Past 35 Years

2007-06-05T17:26:00.000+08:00

I must have been falling behind on pop music, since I don't seem to catch some of the songs, but for that one song I did catch, it was incredibly funny.

via Big Picture, which is really supposed to be a site focussed on finance and investments

The Human Behavior Experiments - CBC Documentary

2007-05-28T23:54:00.000+08:00

"Why would four young men watch their friend die, when they could have intervened to save him? Why would a woman obey phone commands from a stranger to strip-search an innocent employee? What makes ordinary people perpetrate extraordinary abuses, like the events at Abu Ghraib?

Documentarian Alex Gibney (Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room) revisits these three famous behavioral studies to explore some perennial questions about why human beings commit unethical acts under particular social conditions. After seeing this film, you may never say “bad apples” again."

Steve Jobs Stanford Commencement Speech 2005

2007-05-18T23:55:00.000+08:00

This is a great speech by Steve Jobs in 2005. I have read the transcript, but this is the first time I come across the video. If you have no idea what this speech is about, please do spend the 15 minutes listening to it.

Some Old News

2007-05-17T16:42:00.000+08:00

Singapore Military Juggles Ties with Taiwan, China
Fayen Wong
Reuters
Aug 25, 2006

KAOHSIUNG, Taiwan—A dark-green army truck zips through the hilly countryside in southern Taiwan before disappearing behind the high walls of an unmarked military base—the largest of Singapore's three army camps in Taiwan.

For nearly 30 years, the island state of Singapore, which lacks the space for large-scale military manoeuvres, has trained its troops in Taiwan under the code name Operation Starlight.

But Singapore has begun scaling back its military presence in Taiwan in recent years as it sought to warm relations with China, which regards Taiwan as a renegade province.

"In recent years, Singapore's close military links with Taiwan have occasionally been an irritant in the city-state's relationship with China," Tim Huxley, a defence expert who has written books on Singapore's military, told Reuters.

The city-state has over the past decade quietly built defence links with other countries to train its troops overseas such as in Australia, New Zealand, Brunei and Thailand.

It also sends air force contingents to the U.S. and France following arms purchases and hopes to soon formalise an agreement with India to train its troops there as well.

Singapore began Operation Starlight in 1975 when Taiwan, eager to cultivate ties abroad after it lost its United Nations seat to China, offered Singapore military training bases.

It was a welcome offer. Singapore faced communist threats from Malaysia and Indonesia and was keen to build up its fledgling army. But it lacked the space in an island so small a fighter jet can fly over it in less than two minutes.

Analysts estimate that by the mid-eighties, at the peak of the operation, Singapore sent about 15,000 conscripts a year to Taiwan for large-scale war games.

But the training camps in Taiwan became a sensitive issue over the past decade as Singapore, which is 75 percent ethnic Chinese, sought to forge warm ties with China where Singaporean government companies are investing billions of dollars.

Despite its military cooperation with Taiwan, Singapore staunchly supports the "one-China" policy, opposes Taiwanese independence and does not have diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

China Offers Training Bases

It's a diplomatic juggling act that could result in Singapore finding itself in an uncomfortable position if cross-strait relations flare up and it is forced to take sides.

"Singapore is aligned with the U.S. and it also has strong ties with China. But if there was a war between China and Taiwan, Singapore could be unwillingly dragged in," Huxley said.

In terms of trade, Taiwan is Singapore's eighth-largest partner, while China comes in third after the U.S. and Malaysia.

The Singapore Ministry of Defence declined all comment on issues related to Taiwan, despite repeated requests.

While China has in the past turned a blind eye to Singapore's close economic and military ties with Taiwan, it has been less tolerant of any dealings with Taipei since the self-ruled island's leaders started a pro-independence movement.

In 2004, China angrily cancelled the visit of the Chinese central bank governor when Lee Hsien Loong visited Taiwan shortly before becoming Singapore's prime minister,

London-based Jane's Defence Weekly reported in 2001 that Beijing had offered Singapore the use of Hainan island as an alternative training site to Taiwan.

The offer was the first by China to a foreign country and appeared to be an attempt to discourage Singapore's military ties with Taiwan.

"We have never discussed this," Singapore Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean said in June after being asked about the offer.

Huxley that said while Singapore has tried to cut back its dependence on Taiwan, the government had done so carefully, citing reduced training needs rather than any desire to pacify China. At the same time it has tried to avoid offending Beijing.

"As we build new military relationships with countries like India, it will get more difficult for us to not look like we're snubbing China," said Bernard Loo, defence analyst at Singapore's Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies.

Clandestine Operation

Singapore's operations in Taiwan remain shrouded in secrecy.

In his book about Singapore's military, Huxley wrote that during their time in Taiwan, Singaporean troops wear Taiwanese army uniforms distinguishable only by a separate insignia. Several former Singapore soldiers have confirmed this practice.

"Singapore keeps an extremely low profile about its military ties with Taiwan because it does not want this issue to jeopardise its relationship with China," National University of Singapore analyst Khoo How San told Reuters.

Defence analysts estimate the number of troops sent to Taiwan for training has been slashed by half to about 7,000 annually.

The bulk of Singapore's army now goes to Australia, where up to 6,600 soldiers train at Shoalwater Bay in Queensland every year and about 400 vehicles for a light armoured battalion are stored, according to Singapore's defence ministry Web site.

Back in Hengchun where Singapore's largest army base in Taiwan is located, that shift has hurt local business.

"The town used to be teeming with Singaporean soldiers about twenty years ago. Business was brisk at many of these eateries and karaoke bars," Xu Xiu-feng, 42, a restaurant owner said.

"But now this is just a sleepy town," she added.

Taiwan is cutting their military service

2007-05-17T13:00:00.000+08:00

This is not news. It has been going on for years, since the year 2000 to be exact, but you can bet such news will be reported quietly, if at all in the local press. The Taiwanese are cutting their compulsory military service. The military service length for Taiwanese males used to be 2 years. From what I gathered, the cut started in 2003, with a cut to 22 months. 20 months in 2004, 18 months in 2005, 16 months in 2006, 14 months in 2007, and subject to volunteer enlistment meeting recruitment targets, it will be reduced to 12 months in 2008. Volunteer enlistment had been exceeding their targets in recent years due to vastly improved benefits, so they will most probably be able to do the cut in 2008. The target is to cut the service by 2 months every year, until, eventually, the military is all volunteer professionals.

Contrary to what I wrote in an earlier comment, Taiwanese reservists do have reservist training, but the liability currently is no more than 40 days in a 6 year period. In contrast, Singaporean reservists can potentially be called up 40 days a year for 10 years.

I know Singapore is not Taiwan. A US defence expert, Dr Bernard Cole, questioned the use of such short training cycles. (link provided below)

But that does not mean we cannot draw some useful conclusions.

1) If we pay our soldiers with the same mindset as we pay our ministers, I think we can easily have a larger professional army, funded by cutting the length of NSF and NSmen training. Remember, we may pay our NSFs peanuts, but tens of thousands of peanuts add up to a handsome sum. Furthermore, only MINDEF knows what astronomical sum is spent on Make-Up Pay for calling up reservists this frequently.

2) Taiwan faces an opponent bigger and powerful than the whole South-East Asia ex Singapore, combined, and was a site of continual conquests by foreign powers over the past few hundred years. They can learn to breathe easy. Can we?

"Just because you are not paranoid, does not mean that they are not out to get you."

Sources:

Taiwan's Security: History and Prospects by Dr. Bernard Cole, Professor of International History, National War College

Conscription in the Republic of China, Wikipedia

Ministry of National Defence: Military Service to cut to 1 year in 2008 if volunteer enlistment targets met, MND press release (in Traditional Chinese)

Swiss military service

2007-05-16T00:21:00.000+08:00

In 1984, former PM Goh Chok Tong said he targeted to bring the Swiss standard of living , of that year, 1984, to Singapore by 1999. He claimed to have achieved that goal in the year 2000, delayed by the Asian Financial Crisis. Apparently, he was just talking about GDP growth. But some time after 1984, HDB flats brought a Swiss feature to us too: bomb shelters. Even today, the Swiss still braced for nuclear war.

There are a few other things Singapore and Switzerland shares. Like Singapore, Switzerland has four official langauges: German, French, Italian and Romansch. Also like Singapore, Switzerland has compulsory full time military service for the men, followed by many years of reserve training.

At about age 20, every Swiss male goes through 118 consecutive days of recruit training in the Rekrutenschule.

Even before required training begins, young men and women may take optional courses with the Swiss army's M57 assault rifle. They keep that gun at home for three months and receive six half-day training sessions.

From age 21 to 32, a Swiss man serves as a "frontline" troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year (in eight of the 12 years) to continued training. From age 33 to 42, he serves in the Landwehr; every few years, he reports for two-week training periods. Finally, from ages 43, to 50, he serves in the Landsturm; in this period, he only spends 13 days total in "home guard courses".

Over a soldier's career he also spends scattered days on mandatory equipment inspections and required target practice. Thus, in a 30-year mandatory military career, a Swiss man only spends about one year in direct military service. Following discharge from the regular army, men serve on reserve status until age 50 (55 for officers).

Members of the armed forces keep their rifles and uniforms in their homes for immediate mobilisation, as well as 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed tin, to be used for self defence while traveling to the mobilisation points. Additional ammunition is kept at military bases where the militia are supposed to report. Swiss military doctrines are arranged in ways that make this organisation very effective and rapid. Switzerland claims to be able to mobilise the entire population for warfare within 12 hours.

During World War I, both France and Germany considered invading Switzerland to attack each other's flank. In World War II, Hitler wanted the Swiss gold reserves and needed free communications and transit through Switzerland to supply Axis forces in the Mediterranean. But when military planners looked at Switzerland's well-armed citizenry, mountainous terrain, and civil defence fortifications, Switzerland lost its appeal as an invasion target. While two World Wars raged, Switzerland enjoyed a secure peace.

Can a Singaporean dare to dream that one day, the Singapore's national service can catch up with the Swiss?

Sources:

1. The Swiss and their Guns By David B. Kopel and Stephen D'Andrilli

2. Wikipedia

Finally, ST publishes one letter against the Iraq occupation

2007-05-14T11:28:00.000+08:00

After five letters written by men who bury their heads in the sand and chant Bush lies from four years ago endlessly, ST finally publishes a letter written by someone who is actually following the news from Iraq.

America defending the 'free world'? Think again

I REFER to the recent letters on the illegal occupation of Iraq by American and British troops.

Readers have referred to the Sept 11, 2001, tragedy as justification for the war, and congratulated America for protecting the rest of the world from 'terrorist-infested nations'.

But al-Qaeda had little or no presence in Iraq prior to the occupation, while now they flourish there checked only by violence by other factions.

The Bush administration fabricated links between religious extremists al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's fiercely secular regime when no less than bin Laden described Saddam as a 'bad Muslim'.

What about claims of intervention on humanitarian grounds?

With 600,000 civilians dead and counting, the destruction of the infrastructure of much of the country and the widespread flight of medical personnel, this adventure was not a great success.

The consequent suffering and the horror of Abu Ghraib have recruited more terrorists to the cause than any extremist propanda video ever could.

And this does not result from unexpected events after the fact - the Bush administration must have known, unless colossaly incompetent, that Iraq would be unmanageable without substantially more planning and spending than it undertook.

Former president George H.W. Bush wrote as recently as 1998: 'To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.'

The Bush administration hinged its case for war on the existence of weapons of mass destruction. This was false, as UN inspectors closer to the situation in Iraq repeatedly warned.

Since, the Lincoln Group has been paid by the American military to circulate US-friendly news stories in ostensibly independent Iraqi newspapers.

America tortures Guantanamo Bay detainees with stress positions and prolonged isolation, driving many to mental illness and several to suicide.

The American media invents fantasies about heroics by US soliders that those soliders, such as Jessica Lynch, themselves repudiate.

Having orchestrated this circus, the US government readies itself to leave Iraq only after passing Bills requiring the opening of the country's oil fields to foreign exploitation.

In the face of this transparently dishonest grab for wealth, it beggars belief that anyone can write of America defending the 'free world'.

Jolene Tan Siyu (Ms)

London, United Kingdom

Something lighter: Canon is everywhere in pop music

2007-05-14T01:29:00.000+08:00

Side splitting funny for a music illiterate like me. Probably funnier if you know classical music.

found via reddit.com

Time to end military training in Taiwan and Thailand

2007-05-13T16:35:00.000+08:00

My condolences to the family of the national servicemen who were killed or injured in Taiwan. I think it is about time we should ask ourselves: Why are our troops in Taiwan?

I do not fear an imminent military Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Both governments, are too concerned with chasing money to cross swords. What is going on now instead, is a war of words, and a war of language. China does not like to see any official language for Taipei that suggests their sovereignty, but that is precisely what the Taiwanese wants, and is pushing towards that incrementally. Already, Singapore was played like a pawn during Lee Hsien Loong's visit shortly before he became the PM. And even though the PM may be the most eloquent politician in the world, as shown by his world number one salary, he managed to offend both sides of Taiwan Straits, by first seemingly supportive of Taiwan, and then seemingly berating Taiwan, leading to the "peesai/lampa" comment.

When the British troops announced their intention to leave the then newly independent Singapore, nobody was willingly to help Singapore with our national defence. Nobody except equally pariah states like Israel, and later Taiwan. This is something we ought to remember. But just as Israel does not expect Singapore to send troops to defend them, neither does Taiwan need Singaporean troops. To continue our military presence in Taiwan makes our relationship with China, difficult. In times of war, will the Singaporean troops help the Taiwanese? It is a rhetorical question, and if we were pressed for an answer, we will offend someone. Let's end this diplomatic timebomb sooner, rather than later.

If we cut out the Taiwanese training, I believe we can cut back NS by at least 3 months. Will this compromise our operational readiness? Not at all! Who in the world needs two full years to train footsoldiers? Are Singaporean footsoldiers especially slow learners? The Swiss only train their conscripts for as little as 6 months. Anybody who claims that a shorter NS will compromise the training of our soldiers are really saying Singaporeans are a bunch of world class retards.

The same can be said about Thailand. Singapore going to war with Taiwan is a laughable prospect. Singapore going to war with Thailand is not that far fetched. It is not hard to imagine the discomfort felt by the Thai generals over Singaporeans getting too familiar with their terrain. And given our relationship is totally soured, keeping a military presence is like playing with fire while doused in kerosene. Shut the base down. End the troop training. Cut back on the length of NS. Cut both Taiwan and Thailand, and we can shorten NS to just 1.5 years. The men can start university just one year later than the women and foreigners!

Then, MINDEF may have some extra pocket change out of that 10.6 Billion budget to support the lives destroyed by NS.

More neocons in the ST Forum

2007-05-13T15:20:00.000+08:00

Amazingly, the ST Forum editor knows no shame, and publishes another two letters supporting American presence in Iraq. I suppose the moneymen are just thinking about the increase in circulation they can get by stoking the controversy.

One of the writers, Tan Yip Meng wrote "Singapore is not alone in supporting the US. Countries like Japan, South Korea and Denmark know what the stakes are."

If he did some factchecking, he will realise the Japanese had left Iraq for quite a while already, the South Koreans should be all gone by now, and the Danish will leave by August 2007. The remaining non-anglo (US, British and Australian) troops are from almost all former communist countries eager to please the USA out of fear of their old Soviet master, with the exception of El Salvador. The complete list can be found here. More Canadians had died in Afghanistan than these nations put together, suggesting that they are kept far far away from any serious action and their presence is just to create the facade that this is not just a Coalition of Anglos.

Tan Yip Meng also thinks that Darfur is a larger humanitarian crisis compared to Iraq, which is wrong. I believe the estimated death toll in Darfur and Iraq are roughly the same.

But that is besides the point. The Iraqis may be oppressed under Saddam, but it was still a largely peaceful place, as long as you do not cross Saddam. One scandal of the abuse of Oil for Food funds was that, instead of food, the Iraqis used the money to order a liposuction machine. Can a nation this concerned with appearance be remotely interested with a doomsday assault on the West? Bush had NO CAUSE, even unjust ones to invade Iraq. Had Iraqi oil been successfully plundered, we wouldnt have to pay over 60 bucks a barrel. Even as a villian, Bush sucks.

Four years of being stuck in the Iraqi quagmire meant that the Anti-american elements of the world undergone rapid evolution of ideas on how to deal with American weaponry. You can see some of this knowhow deployed in Afghanistan already. Furthermore, the Americans are clearly losing. Not only is the death toll for American soldiers rising month by month, their ability to control even a tiny piece of Baghdad called the Green Zone is getting shakier everyday, which is why they need a "surge" in troops - not to extend their control, but to slow down the deterioration. Already, the Brits are forced to evacuate from their consulate in Basra. It is only a matter of time the US Embassy in Baghdad is forced to evacuate. The Americans can walk away, or be kicked out. It's only a matter of time. Worse yet, the whole world now knows that advanced American weaponry is nothing to be feared.

The other letter, written Christopher Gordon is even more stupid. He calls for Singapore to send more troops to Iraq, right when everybody else is cutting and running. Yah right.

More Colbert! Jane Fonda fondles a nervous Stephen Colbert

2007-05-11T14:58:00.000+08:00

via reddit

Sad, pathetic neocons in the ST forum

2007-05-11T09:26:00.000+08:00

I had a glance at today's ST Forum and no less than 3 letters were published supporting the US invasion of Iraq as a just response to 9/11, even though NO Iraqi, including Saddam, was ever remotely implicated in the plot after all these years. No WMD. Most Americans are not even buying the whole idea of "taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq instead of letting them attack us in our backyard" mambo jambo, and yet there is at least three morons who still think so. Four years ago, I be angry. Now, I am just laughing at their silly need to be consistent with the pro-war stance they took four years ago. It's okay to admit you were misled, oh poor Prem Singh, Vincent Heng Meng Chye and Edmund Khoo Kim Hock. This video is for you three sad pathetic souls, and the stupid ST Editor who published your letters.

Found the video via essays and effluvia

A third US aircraft carrier battle group will be in the Persian Gulf

2007-05-10T08:12:00.000+08:00

The USS Nimitz battle group will soon be joining the USS John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower in the Persian Gulf. The latter is supposed to be replaced by the USS Nimitz, but the main battle operations of the Iraqi invasion only needed two aircraft carriers, and there had been two battle groups in the Persian Gulf for months. What does it mean if three aircraft carriers hang around in the Persian Gulf? A show of force? I rather not speculate.

Link

Short movie review: Spiderman 3

2007-05-06T17:50:00.000+08:00

***WARNING: SPOILERS ALERT!***

The current installment of Spiderman, I can quite safely say, is the worst movie of current Spiderman movie series directed by Sam Raimi. That says very little about the movie given the spectacularly high standards set by the previous two movies. Spiderman 3, while entertaining and not a bad way to spend two and a half hours, is bound to disappoint those who feel a coherent plot is important to a movie.

I get a feeling that the script was changed drastically midway through the filming, with the usual suspects being the meddling studio executives whose sole motivation is to ruin the movie by ensuring the movie appeal to as wide an audience as possible. There is an unnecessarily long segment of the movie that was redundant, and can be best described as a tribute to John Travolta's character in Saturday Night Fever. It is clearly a shameless attempt to pander to the Baby Boomers who grew up in the 70s.

But I also get the feeling that the director is deeply perturbed by the chain of events in America that was started by 9/11, and wanted to weave a message into the movie belatedly, and hence the contrived plot. You can tell from the movie posters this movie will be about Spidey fighting his "Dark Side" a la Star Wars. And like Superman 3, Spidey meets his match, his evil nemesis twin. But unlike the other two movies, one can still trust Sam Raimi to go beyond the skin deep and deliver a message about how indulging in anger and hatred may make one feel powerful, but we cannot harm our enemies without harming our loved ones, and worst of all, consumes and ultimately destroys, our soul. The enemies we choose to hate, may not be culpable for the hurt we thought they caused, or at least not in the way we imagined.

The director must have felt that delivering the message was very important and changed the plot. It is a shame the plot became rather unconvincing, if not downright illogical.

There is a scene where the reference to the colours of the "Star spangled banner" was very strongly felt, when Spidey re-emerges in his blue and red garb to save the world. As though fearing the audience will miss the moment, Spidey lands right in front of huge glowing flag of the USA, destroying all subtlety. The message is clear: blue and red is good, black is bad.

9/11 caused profound pain to people worldwide, but nobody feels it more deeply than the American people. It is not just the body count; like Spiderman, the USA has superpowers, and yet was so humiliatingly helpless in preventing this heinous crime, and may in fact, had enabled the "bad guys" by not doing what was right. It must be tempting to swing to the other extreme and "right" all wrongs by any means. From Guantanamo Bay to the wiretapping scandals, the angry America may be intimidatingly powerful, but it shatters the most cherished possession of the Americans: the American brand of freedom. America faces a terrible fight to exorcise the 9/11 demons. If America fails, who is going to fill the void of saving the world vacated by the superhero draped in blue and red?

A bit of trivia I confirmed from IMDB: apparently Kirsten Dunst is a natural blonde who had to dye her hair red to play the role of Mary Jane Watson, whilst Bryce Dallas Howard, who rocked as the blind girl in "The Village", has to dye her natural red hair blonde for her role. Guess the studio executives are afraid the audience having trouble telling the girls apart.

High Definition Explained

2007-04-27T16:44:00.000+08:00

Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity?

2007-04-27T16:29:00.000+08:00

The (misguided) pursuit of happiness (TEDTalks, Dan Gilbert)

2007-04-27T16:21:00.000+08:00

Please ignore; just a football score :P

2007-04-11T19:47:00.000+08:00

Global Labour Shortage?

2007-04-09T00:19:00.000+08:00

I had expected a global labour shortage to happen some time in the future, where given the declining birthrate in the developed world, and China's "Stop at one" policy and the equivalent birth control policies in India will eventually bite back. I foresee a future where the young person, especially young ladies (due to sexist parents aborting female foetuses), will be in great demand. This trend will accelerate since we will depend on an ever declining pool of young ladies to bear the next generation, even as the options in life for young people expand spectacularly as the baby boomer generation starts to retire and die.

I foresee this to happen in about ten to twenty years. This article suggest that it could be much sooner, like now.

At first, it was just a trickle. Indian call center workers become serial job hoppers, boosting their salaries 20% with every new position. Factory workers in Vietnam leave for the holidays and don't return. Computer programmers in Bulgaria don't bother to answer the want ads of a Los Angeles movie studio. But today, anecdotes of a global labor crunch have turned into a flood. Last week, staffing agency Manpower Inc. released the results of a survey of nearly 37,000 employers in 27 countries. It turns out that more than four out of 10 employers around the world are having trouble hiring the right kind of staff for the right kind of money. And the problem is getting worse.

It is no surprise that sooner or later, the direction of flow due to globalisation may slow, or even reverse. But it seems to be happening sooner than anybody is expecting it. All we need is the US dollar to depreciate a little bit more against the yuan and the rupee, and the cycle is complete.

What this means is that, if you are very young today, a very bright future may await you. But there is a dark side to it: the voting population of the future will be predominantly old people, and populist democracies may yield to the demands of the older electorates and enforce some nasty government policies on young people, like say, a "youth tax", which is paid only by people between 20 and 40.

A minister's job as compared to a CEO: Part 1

2007-04-07T10:22:00.000+08:00

The Minister's job is a lot like that of a CEO, the public face of the company. If anybody knows the name of just one employee of any given company he or she doesnt know personally, chances are, that person is the CEO. Besides an outstanding track record to bring credibility, the two most requirements of a good CEO ought to be

1) excellent communicator

The CEO being the public face of the company must project the right image. Mr Tan Kin Lian, former CEO of NTUC Income, may not look like the usual CEO, but yet his earnest image is likely to boost the image of the company for the everyman buying life insurance. OTOH, most people think Oracle's Larry Ellison is a corporate shark, but that is okay, because the people who can afford buy Oracle products wants to be corporate sharks themselves.

Beyond a two dimensional image, the CEO must connect with the customers. The CEO has a powerful PR budget to brainwash the customers with his lofty visions, but even then, sometimes, the customers may not bite. The CEO must connect to the masses to sense a change in tide. Just as Bill Gates sensed risk in not risking everything in 1995 to refocus on the internet, the CEO must know what is going on at the grassroots.

2) excellent talent manager

If the CEO can identify and convince the right talents to the appropriate jobs, then the only thing left for him to do is to get out of their way. In order to keep talents motivated, the CEO must articulate lofty visions.

As to actual capability in the day to day running, it is really not that essential, although it can be useful. Does anybody think Arnold Schwarzenegger could acquire the capability to manage the 1.6 trillion USD Californian economy overnight after a life time of pumping iron and taking roles in movies that involves little more than spouting one-liners like "I'll be back" in movies? But he seems to be doing fine nevertheless because he is an excellent communicator and has the right advisers. In fact, compared to GWB who had a spotty track record even as Texas governor, The fact that Arnie ought to be the classic all brawns and no brain beefcake, and yet nobody associates him with the word "dumb" compared to Bush shows how well he managed his image.

All that said, CEO pay is going all wacko these days. Carly Fiorina may be just a scapegoat for all the HP woes, but few would think she did a super outstanding job, and yet her severance package can be as high 42 million USD, probably because she is now unemployable in the same capacity. Off hand, I can name three people who earned a billion USD just be being an employee: Sandy Weill, former CEO of Citigroup, Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft and Dr Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google.

If one can be paid millions for failing, how can we begrudge our ministers 2 million?

When will Singapore have bike lanes?

2007-04-01T16:53:00.000+08:00

Until the million dollar ministers find the talents to build bike lanes in Singapore, a feature so common in so many benchmark big cities, I can only believe that the only good in paying them millions is to appease their greed.

1984 by BBC

2007-03-23T18:36:00.000+08:00

Online Videos by Veoh.com

Polytechnic issues: Part 1

2007-03-08T13:55:00.000+08:00

I wanted to write something regarding the local polytechnic education for a while, and a letter published in the ST Forum today provided an opportunity. In her letter, Ms K. Mathiyazhaki was concerned that the poly route is shut for an average student who scored 20 aggregate points. My sympathies to her daughter. It must be a horrible heartbreak to be rejected by all nine courses she applied for. But the following points must be made:

1) The cutoff points for the respective courses are not state secrets. If you drop in at the polytechnics today, you will see a list of cutoff points put up somewhere. I am not working in a polytechnic now, so I do not have the numbers handy, but I suspect the cutoff points for the more popular courses in any year are around 18 to 19 points. Especially since the figures are not published in some booklet or form, she should put in that extra effort to find out from the existing students and lecturers in her preferred courses during, say, the open house. If she does not know even the basics such as cutoff points, it is questionable if she knows how well the courses would suit her. I know it is a hard decision for 16 year olds, but way too many polytechnic students adhere to herd instinct when applying for courses, stampeding to the flavour of the day, which brought them nothing but three years of painful misery, if they can endure that long.

2) With 20 points, Ms Mathiyazhaki's daughter is just below average and should have included a few less popular course in her choices. She simply lacks the bargaining power with the more popular courses. I am sure she qualifies for plenty of other unpopular and unglamorous courses, like say, engineering. But to say that the poly route is shut for average student is simply untrue. The lecturer's ultimate nightmare are the 30-pointers - ie those who average a C6 in all five of their 'O' level subjects, and somehow still managed to qualify for a polytechnic place.

3) If she cannot qualify for her preferred course, and do not want to compromise by taking up a course she has no interest in, then perhaps the best course of action is to retake her 'O' levels. Polytechnics do not discriminate against older students. In fact, I find it questionable sometimes that post-ITE post-NS students in their 20s are mingling with 16 year olds, but I shall not stray into that.

4) 11 pointers are barely JC material. JC application require SIX subjects, not the five for polytechnics, which could bloat an 11 pointers aggregate to, say 17 points if the sixth best subject is only a C6, which is absolutely bottom scraping these days. Why be the bottom of the pile of a JC with virtually no hope of qualifying for NUS/NTU/SMU when you can be king in a polytechnic? Despite many underdog stories, most of the time, polytechnic scores are strongly correlated to the 'O' level scores, just as they are in the JCs.

Post Secondary education used to be straightforward - the best 20% or so goes to 'A' levels, while the next 20% goes to polytechnics, and the remainder will go to the ITEs. 'A' level candidates are protected from competition from poly grads in the admission to local universities because the 'A' level education is meant to be an academic extension to their secondary education, while poly grads are considered to have received a fully subsidised tertiary education and thus is considered a waste to taxpayer funds for them to receive another round of subsidised tertiary education.

And in the "good old days", the government was not the least interested in catering for the preferences of the poly students; polytechnics are first and foremost, a place to train less academically inclined students who do not mind getting their hands dirty for frontline factory work. Even today, the mainstay of all polytechnics are still the engineering courses, even though Singapore is no longer the manufacturing hub with an insatiable appetite for diploma level engineers and technicians.

Couple that with the increased aspirations of Singaporeans, the polytechnics find that nearly 50% of their school leavers end up taking a degree course immediately upon graduation, mostly overseas. The polytechnics have no choice but to adapt, and change from a hands on technician perspective to a pseudo overseas university prep school. The courses today are more influenced by the popular Australian universities via their grant of advanced standing (which allows one to skip certain courses and thus shorten the time to a degree), than by the demands of the local job market.

To put it simply, local polytechnics have lost their sense of purpose and are desperately grasping for a new identity.

SGX trading system seem to have crashed

2007-02-28T16:16:00.000+08:00

No, I dont mean, the prices. That already crashed. I meant all stock trading appear suspended, like it is just after 5pm. Guess there was so much selling the systems crashed. So much for tomorrow's market, today.

Update: So trades were being matched, well at least those that made it through, and maybe there will be confirmation of the trade, well, maybe. The shortists who hope to cover after 4pm would be caught with naked shorts, setting the stage for a big up day T+4.

-DJ UPDATE: Singapore Exchange Confirms Disruption To Trading
(Recasts lead, adds statement from Singapore Exchange.)

SINGAPORE (Dow Jones)--Trading on the Singapore stock market, which fell 3.7% Wednesday amid a slide in global equities, was disrupted by the high volume of orders, and the problem hasn't yet been fixed, the exchange said.

Technical staff are working to resolve congestion in the trading system but the exchange can't yet say that trading will be normal on Thursday, a Singapore Exchange Ltd. (S68.SG) spokeswoman said.

Brokers said the exchange's trading system was overwhelmed Wednesday.

There were "major problems getting orders through and trade confirmation," said a broker at a local bank.

Internet-based trading systems were also affected, the broker said.

The volume of orders caused "congestion" in the retrieval and display of order information on the majority of trading terminals, the Singapore Exchange said in a statement.

Buy and sell orders were still able to be matched, it said.

Some 3.2 billion shares changed hands Wednesday, according to Singapore Exchange data, about the same as Tuesday's session.

The Straits Times Index closed down 3.7% at 3,111.94 points following an overnight fall of 3.3% on the Dow Jones Industrial Average on fears of a U.S. recession and a steep fall Tuesday in Chinese shares.

-By Stephen Wright, Dow Jones Newswires; 65 6415 4151; stephen.wright@dowjones.com
-Edited by Costas Paris
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
February 28, 2007 07:14 ET (12:14 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Taking vitamin supplements may increase risk of death, says study

2007-02-28T13:34:00.000+08:00

Linus Pauling, a recipient of two Nobel Prizes, once postulated that, if small doses of vitamins is so essential for staying alive, taking big doses will make you stronger, more immune to diseases. His ideas helped germinate a whole generation of pill popping hypochondriacs, even though there is little scientific basis to his ideas, the aura of his two Nobel Prizes convinced many that he is too smart to be wrong.

But increasing studies have shown that overdose of water insoluble vitamins, like Vitamin A, can cause severe health problems. The current study seems to suggest that even at previously considered safe levels, vitamin supplements could increase the likelihood of death. In other words, it is worse than an ineffective placebo; it is downright detrimental to spend money on vitamin supplements. All the vitamins you need, can be obtained from a balanced diet. Any further attempts to "trump" nature by taking supplements may not help, or worse still, kill you.

Which makes me think about our "foreign talent" policies. Like vitamins, if we try to bar all foreigners from Singapore, Singapore will die. But do we need to supplement our "natural intake" with more generous scholarships? Does it even help? I do not think it is unreasonable to say that, if ever Singapore has an overdose of "foreign talent", both Singaporeans and foreigners will suffer.

Chaos at Chingay: Is this the Singaporean way?

2007-02-28T11:33:00.000+08:00

So we had a little Chinese New Year parade called the Chingay, with floats and hip-hop dancing Members of Parliament. Huge crowds gathered to watch. Singaporeans are always unusually game for some free entertainment. Unruly behaviour happened, happy mood soiled. Yet another story about Ugly Singaporeans. Or is it? From the article:

"things went awry when the volunteers were not present. Two passers-by succeeded in sneaking in. A man tried to follow suit minutes later, was stopped by volunteers, but refused to retreat. A police officer tried to intervene, but was greeted with a rude hand gesture and a chase followed.

Then all hell broke loose. More people sneaked in and stood around, obstructing the ticket holders' view. By the time the police and volunteers arrived on the scene, it was too late for them to take action against the dozens of "infiltrators". What further infuriated me was when some of them tried to occupy my seat when I stood up to catch a better view of the show. An elderly couple next to me suffered the same fate."

Does it sound like a Singaporean would try to trespass barriers, even though they are more symbolic than practical? Singapore is a place where people reserve seats in hawker centres with packets of tissue paper, and queues can form spontaneously whenever such are needed. I doubt Singaporeans will go so far to make "hand gestures" at policemen. Not that I am terribly proud of it, but Singaporeans behave like sheep in a herd. Our men in uniform are like the shepherd dogs whose barks are sufficient to keep the herd in line. Given that one in four warm bodies in Singapore are foreigners, it will not surprise me that such "out of line" behaviour was committed by foreigners. In fact such anti-social behaviour is very common when I have the misfortune of bumping into tour groups from PRC at tourist sights overseas.

So Singapore wants to have 6.5 million. Given our birthrate, the growth will certainly be fueled entirely by foreigners, the majority of which will be from PRC, because the government clearly wants to maintain the racial ratio. What happens when we have to compete with people who do not respect our rules and our way of doing things? We can either choose to let them walk all over us, or we can beat them by being more rude, more anti-social, more nasty. Indeed, those unruly people could very well be Singaporeans fed up with being the nice guy coming in last.

Is that the Singapore you want your children to grow up in? One of the letter writers also pointed out the dangers the mismanaged crowd posed to small children.

I have serious doubts about the competency of the government to manage Singapore at our crowding level of 4.5 million. When we hit 6.5 million, Singapore will probably be unlivable for families.

Alex Au(Yawning Bread) has lost the plot

2007-02-26T10:24:00.000+08:00

Alex Au of Yawning Bread fame, has never made it a secret that he supports the Singapore government's "foreign talent" policies, but of late, he has turned downright into a cheerleader for more "foreign talent".

In his latest piece on Yawning Bread, 6.5 million will make a different Singapore, he is blatantly accusing Singaporeans of being "economically illiterate" for not embracing the "foreign talents" with open arms. You can see how lopsided his argument is, with his example of importing 2 million foreigners into an uninhabited island with no natural resources, and a thriving economy will exist just by having the foreigners there, and somehow, the same will apply to Singapore when we import over 2 million foreigners MORE to meet the 6.5 million target.

How lame is his example?

First of all, Singapore is not an uninhabited island. Can he be sure that the original inhabitants will be better off after the island population nearly doubles? Can he even be sure the proportion that benefits from the population not be meaninglessly small?

But Singapore is not Malaysia. We embrace globalisation and we do not protect our "Children of the Earth". Which begs the the next question: 2 million more foreigners do not congregate in an island with no natural resources automatically. There has to be some incentive to attract them here. There has to be more incentives to keep them here, because I dont think most people can get off just by rubbing shoulders with strangers in an incredibly crowded island. Who foots the bill to attract all these foreigners? Who pays the price to keep the foreigners here? For such massive number of immigrants to stay, it is inevitable that we put the foreigners on a pedestal, and relegate Singaporeans to a second class status.

As an avid traveller, I am keenly aware that some of the most wonderful tourist sights are often omitted by popular tour guidebooks, not out of ignorance, but because the writers feel they have a moral obligation not to destroy the pristine settings with endless hordes of package tourists who has no personal interest in the sights other than snapping photos to prove they were there. If Singapore cannot keep up the incentives to keep our millions of foreigners here, and after all the foreigners leave, what will Singapore be left with? Would the most talented and mobile Singaporeans who were forced out by the crowding want to return?

None of these are important to Alex Au, of course. He thinks all the problems with overcrowding will be solved by the government's excellent planning skills. Yes, the same government that threatened the people "Stop at two" in the 70s with punitive measures, now blame the people for three decades of low birthrate, using it as the convenient excuse for the indiscriminate import of foreigner, is going to plan all the problems away with their unrivalled foresight.

That, and avoiding "over-regulation" and conservative risk averse "habits of mind" is all we need. By that, I suppose he means legalising gay sex, and everybody will live in harmony ever after.

Yes, it is obvious Alex Au supports the import of foreigners because it will make the strengthen his gay rights movement. He sees Singaporean minds calcified with homophobia and is incapable of moving forward without a kick in the butt by foreigners. The tipping point was probably Workers' Party recent declaration of their reluctance to champion gay rights. He probably feels betrayed by the Worker's Party, after he framed and made famous the greatest victory of the Workers' Party in recent memory. Since opposition politics is not going to help his primary cause: gay rights, then I guess he is better off currying the favour of the ruling party. Come to think about it, the ruling party's strategy to fix the internet may not be that anonymous at all.

I used to be a big fan of Yawning Bread, and it had a great impact on me regarding gay rights. But the more I read, the more I see, Alex Au is just another foreigner worshiping, Singaporean loathing Singaporean. Take a look at "What a clean and cultured place we have" to see what he really thinks about Singapore and Singaporeans.

Military strike on Iran and/or Syria imminent?

2007-01-09T12:56:00.000+08:00

This morning, there was news of a US nuclear powered submarine colliding with a Japanese oiltanker in the Straits of Hormuz. It suggests that the narrow waterway right next to Iran is getting incredibly crowded.

Bush had recently replaced the two most senior generals overseeing the Iraq war, and according to this article from The Nation, it is an ominous sign, and I quote

"The choice of Fallon to replace Abizaid was highly unusual ...

Fallon is a Navy man, with experience in carrier operations, while most of Centcom's day-to-day work is on the ground, in the struggle against insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Fallon began his combat career as a Navy combat flyer in Vietnam, and he served with carrier-based forces for twenty-four years after that. He commanded a carrier battle wing during the first Gulf War in 1991 and led the naval group supporting NATO operations during the Bosnia conflict four years later.

...he is primed to oversee an air, missile and naval attack on Iran, should the President give the green light for such an assault--and the fact that Fallon has been moved from Pacom to Centcom means that such a move is very much on Bush's mind."

Ominous signs.

That green flash across the sky on Sunday evening...

2007-01-08T01:37:00.000+08:00

By sheer freakish luck, I happened to have seen it. For a while, my heart sank as my ears braced for an explosion. Fortunately, by now, we can safely conclude that it wasnt an aircrash. Whatever it was, it travelled quite slowly, slow enough for my wife to catch a glimpse in the anticipated direction of travel when the object re-emerged after being blocked by some flats. It definitely travelled slower than a meteor. The best way I can describe it is that, it looked like an unusually large ball of fireworks stuff, constantly disintegrating as it moves southwards. No photograph though. Just chipping in my 2 cents worth, desperately hoping to hear the truth about this "UFO".

Update: After reading this account by squareCircleZ, I like to reaffirm that I was in the Bedok Central area, and the object appeared on the east side of where I was heading south. There are some accounts suggesting an alternative direction of travel, which I firmly believe, is wrong. The time was around 7.40pm, as widely reported, just a minute or two in the twilight before the sky turned totally dark. The object was obscured by clouds from time to time, and illuminated the clouds as it streaked past, suggesting that it is pretty higher up than typical fireworks altitude. Given the height, it was pretty fast, but since there was no sonic boom, it cannot be supersonic. Either that, or it was really far away, which could mean that it was a very very large object.

Saddam is executed

2006-12-30T14:15:00.000+08:00

It is with much pain as I write this, but Saddam Hussein was hanged on Saturday 0300 GMT, 11 am Singapore time.

I remember the time when the Iran-Iraq War hogged the international news on TV. I was in secondary school then. In spite of constant Iranian claims of Iraqis using chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers, there was no outrage I could recall, at least not reported by our local TV news. Way back then, as it is now, the Iranians were perceived as the religious nuts bent on destroying the world, and Saddam was contributing to "World Peace", shielding the "Free World" from religious fanaticism. Saddam was the "Good Guy", and "Good Guys" can do no wrong. Although I saw on TV the chemical burns the Iranian soldiers suffered, I felt little pity.

And there was peace, or so we thought, because, thanks to Saddam, the nuts in Iran were taught a lesson and the world was safe again, but not for long.

It is apparent now, the reason why Saddam made peace with Iran then, even returning conquered land, was because he had a fatter peace of meat in his gunsight: Kuwait. It was probably Saddam's biggest mistake in his life. I sincerely believe that he misread how Uncle Sam would react to his invasion. The world was cheering him on for spreading peace by slaughtering Iranians, the world would probably cheer him on for spreading peace to Kuwait as well. In fact, the invasion of Kuwait was relatively bloodless compared to the slaughterfest of Iranians.

Overnight, Saddam turned from the "Good Guy" to the "Evil Babylon". It was then that we had a 24 hour news channel appearing out of nowhere for free over the air; not CNA, but CNN. (Or was it 7am to midnight?) Suddenly, Saddam was not "cool" anymore. CNN went on and on about Saddam's aspirations to invade Saudi Arabia, thereby monopolising more than 50% of the world's oil supply, painting a doom and gloom scenario for the "free world". The "free world" generally agreed Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and the threat to Saudi Arabia was a "bad thing", and the American President the, Bush Senior, promptly assembled a million strong coalition first to defend Saudi Arabia, and then, after months of careful planning, kicked Saddam's ass. Hard. It was supposed to be the "Mother of All Battles", but the Iraqis just caved in. It was then that Saddam did the most atrocious act of environmental terrorism.

Before retreating from Kuwait, Iraqi soldiers opened up as many Kuwaiti oil wells as they could and set them ablaze, enveloping the region in dark noxious fumes. Crude oil spilled into the Persian Gulf, and it was heart wrenching then to see the multitudes of sea birds covered in crude oil, unable to fly, slowly dying in the beaches. If I had my way then, I would have chopped Saddam into a million pieces. And it was with great shock, that the Americans, on scoring a beautiful victory against the Iraqis, suddenly stopped their advance on Baghdad, and retreated back to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It didnt make any sense at all, and I was bitterly disappointed. Saddam deserved to die. Saddam must die. He must pay for his evil sins. Bush Senior let the world down by not finishing Saddam off. Or so I thought.

Fast forward to today, and it is ironic that I am sad that Saddam is dead. Executed. Hanged. Perhaps I am wiser now, more aware of the shades of grey in the world, and therefore, more sympathetic towards Saddam. Or perhaps I am just as easily manipulated by the media today as I was in my teenage years. Or perhaps that my dislike of Bush Junior made Saddam a sort of an anti-hero. For a man with such bloodied hands, he sure died with much grace, talking about using his death as a sacrifice and praying for peace and forgiveness.

I am not an opponent of the death penalty. And I believe that the death penalty ought to be brutal and barbaric as it possibly can be, to maximise the effect it has as a deterrent against crimes. But the hanging of Saddam causes me much pain, much much more than the hanging of, say, Nguyen Van Tuong, even though Saddam was neither young, nor handsome, nor was his crimes as "trivial" as drug trafficking.

I lament because the "worst" charges they could pin on him dates all the way back to 1982. And his "genocide" of the 148 Shias was not a whim - some of those people tried to kill him but failed. Perhaps the reprisal was excessive by international norms but he was certainly entitled to some form of retribution to deter further attempts on his life. The current US invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused the deaths of easily over 200,000 Iraqis and at least a hundred more die every month due to the anarchy caused by the occupation, all because maybe, maybe Iraqis could be working on something that maybe, maybe someday can hurt a few Americans. How many death sentences should Bush Junior get, for his crimes of incompetence to the Iraqis? And for a consummate villain like Saddam, how is it that the only real crimes anybody could prove against him was in 1982?

In 1983, one year after Saddam committed the crimes that condemned him to death, AND while he was reported to be using chemical weapons against the Kurds, then American President Ronald Reagen sent his special envoy, Donald Rumsfeld to meet Saddam Hussein, as you can see in the youtube video below, to express, among other things, American approval of Iraq's role in the Iran-Iraq war, and the American desire to establish full diplomatic ties with Baghdad. Right at the time when Saddam was committing his worst evils. Perhaps, US intelligence was already faulty then, and the Americans didnt knew what was going on in Iraq. But the use of chemical weapons against Iranians was publicly seen on TV. But all that was no issue with the Americans until 2002.

From what I now know, Saddam is quite fearful of the United States. Since Saddam found himself to be the "Bad Guy" in the eyes of Uncle Sam, he had stopped using chemical weapons. Iraqi research into nuclear power and nuclear weapons was frozen at the end of the first Gulf War. Iraq was harbouring Abu Nidal, probably the most ruthless terrorist leader in modern times for many years, but apparently, Saddam ordered him killed in 2002 in the buildup to Gulf War 2.

I don't want to predict what may happen with Saddam's death. From what I see, Saddam is little more than a symbolic figurehead now. Only gullible neo-conservatives believe that executing Saddam can help with the Iraq situation. And symbolic figureheads are more powerful dead, than alive.

The Thing About Rich Dad Poor Dad

2006-11-28T15:42:00.000+08:00

Worldwide Success, has a little something to say about Robert Kiyosaki. Here are some bullet points:

Robert Kiyosaki is a product of Amway (now Quixtar) and other multi-level marketing organizations, and this is how he became a best seller
Rich Dad Poor Dad is nothing but a collection of old clichés about money
Kiyosaki now admits that certain events in his book have been fictionalized. In other words, some of the stories in the book were made up
Rich dad may not have existed. There are good reasons to believe that Rich dad is part of the fiction mentioned above
ABC 20/20 did a story in which they invited Kiyosaki to provide advice to three people who were given $1,000 to start a business and show a profit in 20 days. They all pretty much failed, but Kiyosaki said it was a success because they all learned from their failures. The conclusion of the story: “Does anyone really need 18 books to learn to fail?”
...
How does Kiyosaki make his money and how much does he really have? He will not reveal. He says he keeps his holdings private because of lawsuits. John says this insults our intelligence.
John Reed provides several comprehensive lists about Kiyosaki’s books:
List of incorrect conventional wisdom
List of inconsistencies
List of factual errors
List of unlikely stories

John Reed's work on Robert Kiyosaki can be read here.

Blatantly sexist job ad

2006-11-24T18:11:00.000+08:00

Found this on jobsdb via sammyboy forums:

ADDON: Seems like Mr Wang posted something about the same topic at the same time, so I have shamelessly linked to his posting.

Qool Labs is a new generation company...

We are seeking for enthusiastic, aggressive and result oriented individuals to join our winning team.

MARKETING ASSISTANT Post Date: 16 Nov 06

Responsibilities :

* To assist the Marketing Communications/Support Manager in the implementation and coordination of the marketing activities and events

*Female working environment*

Had that line been *Male working environment*, you can be sure AWARE will kick up a big fuss. Or am I misreading the intention? Disproportionately female working environment desperately looking for single available hot males with big biceps, females need not apply?

Technorati: discrimination, singapore, jobs, sexism

A documentary about the movie Blade Runner

2006-11-23T22:46:00.000+08:00

For the fans of Blade Runner, which still has a huge influence in sci-fi productions today, like Battlestar Galactica, reimagined.

Singapore ranked 84th in democracy index

2006-11-23T18:59:00.000+08:00

According to a democracy index devised by the Economist Intelligence Unit, Singapore is ranked 84th. That rates us as a hybrid regime together with Albania and Russia, worse off than flawed democracies like Indonesia and Hong Kong, but better than all out authoritarian regimes like China and Sudan. Singapore scores are extremely skewed, scoring very badly in the categories of "Political Participation" and "Electoral Process and Pluralism" - scores were even lower than many of the authoritarian regimes, while scoring very highly in the categories of "Functioning of Government", "Political Culture" and "Civil Liberties".

Sweden is ranked number one, and is described as a near-perfect democracy, along with many Scandinavian countries. You can have a look at the complete list here and an explanation of the methodologies here.

While the Singapore government likes to use the high taxation Scandinavian welfare states as a bogeyman against welfarism in Singapore, the truth is that the Scandinavian brand of welfarism is clearly popular with the people, or the people would have dismantled the welfare system via the ballot box. As a further vote of confidence, the birthrate of these highly democratic countries are very high among the developed nations, which, in my opinion, shows that the parents are optimistic about their children's future, as compared to the fearful Singaporean parents.

I do not think the average Singaporean will begrudge higher taxes, if he or she is convinced that the tax money they paid will return to help us when we descend upon hard times. After all, most Singaporeans gladly part with hundreds of dollars every month for life insurance, hoping that it will make a difference when tragedy strikes.

What insurance you should get for your children

2006-11-19T15:21:00.000+08:00

This is a dated but still very useful forum post from the Wall Straits Forum written by a very knowledgeable d.o.g., regarding the purchase of insurance for newborn children. Parents please read the highlights here before meeting your "financial planner".

"Children's education policies are basically renamed endowment plans...

Medical insurance for the child is an absolute must. Buy a good hospitalization and surgery (H&S) plan that offers first-dollar coverage (NO DEDUCTIBLE). Make sure it is GUARANTEED RENEWABLE. The earlier you buy it the better, before the child develops any illnesses that get excluded or the child gets denied coverage completely. H&S plans are not cheap, typically costing a few hundred dollars a year, but are well worth the cost IMHO.

The new parents would probably want to provide for their daughter in the event of an accident happening to them (the parents). So there should be sufficient coverage on the life of the mother/father that the payout will cover the cost of raising the child to a financially independent age (typically to the point of graduation from a polytechnic or university = 19/20 years of age). Even assuming a basic lifestyle, this cost will likely be in the region of $100,000-$200,000 or more.

Fortunately, term life coverage is VERY cheap. So buy enough coverage, and maybe buy 20-50% more just in case the cost of living (and education) rise too much. Again, buy term life coverage on the life of the PARENTS. Don't bother with life insurance for the child - no one is worse off financially if the child dies, so life insurance for the child is a waste of money.

A disability income policy should also be considered for the parents, as the risk of disability and partial/permanent loss in earning power is a lot higher than that for death/total permanent disability. It takes quite a bit to kill a person, a lot less to injure him/her. Especially if the parents are working in areas with higher occupational hazards... Workmen's compensation is pathetic so don't count on it...

1. H&S policy for the child (must have)
2. Term life policy for the parents (must have)
3. Disability income policy for the parents (comparatively expensive, skip if budget is too tight)
4. Optional: critical illness policy for the parents (nice to have but not absolutely necessary)

AVOID: whole life plans, endowment plans, and investment-linked policies. These are totally unsuitable for people without much disposable income. The less well off you are, the more suitable term policies are. Unfortunately, the less well off are also sometimes less well informed, and they often get sold the most unsuitable policies (read: lots of whole life and endowment policies). Do your relatives a favour and make sure they only get term policies. Anything with an investment component can wait until they get their finances in shape and can reliably save a good amount each month (10% or more of monthly income).

As for the child's education, if the family is in serious financial difficulties, they should have no trouble getting bursaries ...

Assuming the parents have spare cash to invest, endowment policies are a poor way to provide for a child's education. ..."

Technorati tags: Financial Planning, Singapore, Insurance

More Bang For Your Savings Bucks

2006-11-19T15:18:00.000+08:00

Some of the best sources of information comes from the most surprising of sources. Larry Haverkamp aka Dr Money of The New Paper runs a wonderful website www.askdrmoney.com.

Take a look at the Best Bank Deposit Rates link to some ideas for better deposit rates for your savings account. For those who need a fast answer, take a look at Standard Chartered's eSavers' account and Maybank's iSavvy account. Both are online savings account with no lock-in period, and you will be paid 1.88% minimum (bid sayonara to 0.25%!) The only catch is that it will be slightly harder to withdraw cash, but you can work around that with a little bit of planning by doing online transfer to a local bank account a few days in advance.

For those with more cash and can tolerate a little lock in, did you know that get 3% or more? Go take a look at the website for some ideas to make your idle cash work harder, relatively risklessly.

PS I am not related to or paid by Larry Haverkamp or The New Paper or Standard Chartered or Maybank.

The Finn who loved Singapore aka The Finn punched a Singaporean woman

2006-11-18T16:15:00.000+08:00

I found this via the Sammyboy forum, and it is totally hilarious. This is what Mika Sampovaara wrote that was published by the Straits Times:

He left welfare state to come to Singapore

I WOULD like to commend Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for sticking to the Singaporean economic model.
I read with interest his views regarding Scandinavian welfare states. I am from one of them: Finland.
While it is true that there is more 'welfare' in Scandinavia, it comes at a price. Public spending in my country stands at 25 per cent of GDP, twice that of Singapore.
The government in Finland spends vast amounts of money on free health care and education, nearly twice the 8 per cent of GDP spent in Singapore. Having been to Changi hospital I can say that health care here is no worse than in my country and the charges are very reasonable. My point is it doesn't have to be free.
It's a question of choice and pricing. The public sector typically does not run the most efficient services, because the services are non-competitive.
Singapore runs a tighter ship, because it's only partially subsidised. Compulsory savings schemes for health care and pensions are a far better way. So is taxing consumption over income.
Many people in my country give up half or more of their gross incomes to finance the almighty welfare state. This serves to promote equality of sorts and creates a vast middle class. It also stifles entrepreneurism and leads to voluntary unemployment. The cost of living is higher too, with GST at 22 per cent.
I disagreed with the crushing taxes in my country. It is for this reason that I came to Singapore, and was happy to give up the benefits I had paid for over the years.
Long live the Singaporean model.
Mika Sampovaara

So who is this Mika? Apparently, he is a derivatives trader. Want to know more? Read this news extract:

A man was fined $1,000 in court for hurting a woman after her pet dog crossed his path.

Mika Johannes Sampovaara pleaded guilty to a charge of causing hurt to Mindy Tan Lay Eng outside her home in Siglap on February 4 last year.

The complainant had earlier asked for $50,000 as compensation. Sampovaara had offered to pay her $38,000 instead, but she refused.

Channel NewsAsia understands Tan may take a civil suit against Sampovaara for the injuries she suffered. - CNA/de

Coincidence? I think not. I dont think anybody ever said Singapore is not a paradise for high income high net worth individuals, especially foreigners who eat here, shit here, punch people here and get away with light sentence. Somehow, I dont think he gave up his Finnish citizenship, and probably intends to return to Finland after he is done milking Singapore. What a hypocrite.

Fun with Rumsfeld

2006-11-18T14:47:00.000+08:00

Found this via The Big Picture.

CPF as a form of life insurance

2006-11-17T14:53:00.000+08:00

Mr Wang had a blog post "More on Life and Money" and I like to share my thoughts on what happens to your CPF money when you die.

What a lot of people need to realise, is that the CPF itself is a very simple form of insurance. I speak as a person who has collected CPF money from a deceased person before. If the nomination is done right, the CPF board will contact you within a week for your bank account number, and the money plus Singtel shares and so on, will be transferred with minimal fuss, even if you are a minor (ie under 21). If one dies without a nomination, then the process gets complicated because the allocation of the money will get stuck with the other assets subject to estate tax assessment. Think about it: If your OA+SA+Medisave adds up to 100k, do you still want to pay 100 bucks a month for a whole life insurance coverage of roughly say, 50k?

The process for transferring other assets like money in bank account is not so straightforward, because they are subject estate tax assessment. When the bank is informed of the demise of the bank account holder, they will freeze the bank account. No further transaction is possible until an executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased is appointed, a legal process that will take some time. Having a will helps if there are potential dispute over who should get what proportion, but otherwise will not speed up the process if one dies without a will (intestate).

Dont opt out of the Dependency Protection Scheme. It is the cheapest term life insurance one can buy. Now that the DPS is privatised, make sure you get the nomination done as well; it is now separate from the nomination for the CPF accounts.

Lastly, be careful not to plunge your loved ones into a cashflow crisis, especially if you have zilch in your CPF accounts. Where possible, open a joint bank account which can be withdrawn by any party. When one party of the bank account dies, the money automatically goes to the other party.

Technorati: Singapore CPF Insurance

The case for Singapore to go for nuclear power

2006-11-16T22:52:00.000+08:00

This question had been in my head for some time, but I am pre-empted to it by this article written by Speranza Nuova at the Singapore Angle.

Let me get my message across in the simplest and most straightforward way: Singapore should build a nuclear power plant as soon as Malaysia formally talks about building one. Why?

1) Water independence

With Newater, Singapore can finally sleep well without worry about Malaysia cutting off our water supply, or so we thought. The problem with Newater or flash distillation, is that both are energy intensive processes. You cant power either processes with solar power panels for example. If we cannot secure our power supply, we cannot secure our water supply. Be it piped gas from Natuna or LNG, we are still dependent on a foreign country for electricity generation and that diminishes the strategic effectiveness of Newater significantly.

2) Hydrogen, ethanol and biodiesel does not make sense for Singapore

Where does hydrogen come from? For most hydrogen powered cars, the fuel they use will most likely come from electrolysis of water... you know passing electricity to break water down into oxygen and hydrogen. If you live within a stone's throw from the Hoover Dam, where electricity is cheaply available, a hydrogen driven car will make environmental sense. A hydrogen driven car in Singapore, OTOH, may mean zero carbon emissions at your car, but the electricity used to produce the hydrogen is most likely generated by a power plant burning natural gas. Similarly, ethanol and biodiesel makes sense in agricultural countries like US and Brazil because of state subsidies. If you try to import the raw materials like corn, and refine it, you will find the process will consume more energy than the fossil fuels it is suppose to replace, emit comparable amount of carbon dioxide, and harder to manage at the engine level because of their corrosive nature.

3) Groundwork for nuclear weapon knowhow

Energy requirements aside, this could be the greatest by-product. If, at some point in the future, Singapore needs to build a nuclear bomb, we will need a critical mass of experts and we cannot depend on foreign talents. So why not start small, with nuclear power first. Why do you think six Arab states including Saudi Arabia, suddenly desire to build nuclear power plants, even though they are sitting on the largest crude oil reserves in the world?

4) Geopolitical non-concern

If this list on wikipedia is any good, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Bangladesh, Vietnam all possess nuclear reactors, although some are for academic research. Indonesia in particular has three running nuclear power generators, including one in Yogyakarta, which just suffered a major earthquake. Besides, American nuclear powered aircraft carriers routinely dock in Changi Naval Base.

When crude oil prices were higher, some Malaysian politicians were already urging the country to build nuclear power plants. I suggest Singapore should start planning soon, and kick start the project as soon as Malaysia loses the moral high ground to object, because a big proper plant may take a whole decade to build. After all, the two or three or four new IRs are going to consume a helluva electricity.

GST hike

2006-11-16T17:56:00.000+08:00

In response to blog posts by Mr Wang, Aaron Ng, Bart J and Kway Teow Man, I have the following to say.

In my days between NS and NUS over a decade ago, I worked as a security guard. The job consisted of 12 hour shifts, mostly spent standing. I discovered some co-workers were very lazy. Always looking for opportunities to nap, arriving late, leaving early. Then I realised the reason: they were doing another 12 hour security guard shift somewhere else, effectively working 24 hours a day, every working day. Why? Because they need to earn at least about $2k every month to make ends meet, or something bad will happen. In my time, I have met people who would skip meals to make ends meet. Many of these people may not even meet the definition of poor because of their inelastically high expenditure is masked by their not-so-low income. Whether or not the CCC, MCYS, or their "I didnt know there are poor people in developed countries" MPs are capable of targetting the genuinely needy is a big question mark.