An honest inside view of the Evil Empire

Watch this video, just for 2 minutes, the rest is up to you, to understand what is really going on in Washington and what the Evil Empire has been plotting to do while deceiving the world. Listen to the comments by Gen Wesley Clark on how the evil men in Washington decided to invade countries for no reason, made the decision to conduct regime change and then fabricated lies to deceive the world of their real intent.


How to solve the sick SMRT?

After hiring a salesgirl and paying her millions to run the MRT and making great profits while the train system headed to a standstill, SMRT did not learn anything. You just cannot hire someone with no experience in the running of a train system to manage a train system. The train system is more complicated than what it appears to be. This is the view taken from recent comments after the flood of problems and breakdowns. And they went to hire another with no experience in running a train, a soldier, to run it and the rest is history.

Then there is this volunteer in Khaw Boon Wan, also got no experience in running a train, that came in to try to solve the problem but also hitting a dead wall. He thought it was a piece of cake. Nah, it is not so easy to fix a faulty train system. This is not like switching it on and off, like stopping the building of more HDB flats and then restarting the same process.

The commuters are disgusted, exasperated, frustrated, losing their patience, and now every commuter, from the old to the young are crying out loud to voice their two cents worth of opinion and solutions. Outsource the management to some experienced train operators, hire foreign talents, send our millionaire train managers to learn from those earning peanuts in other countries, and all the standard solutions that one trick pony can think of. Then the same bunch of commuters answered themselves with their self doubts and doubting questions. Could these work? Of course cannot lah.

The best solution I can think of to temporary solve this problem and stop all the kpkbs and the pressure exerted on the train operator/govt is to tell the people that a complete overhaul or a complete rebuild, a new system, is the answer. Just this announcement alone will immediately stop all the kpkbs. Tell them the replacement system will take 5 to 10 years and the commuters would just have to live with it. You want a new and trouble free train system or not? The answer must be yes. And if yes, you got to bear with it, just 5 or 10 years to wait. In the meantime when the train is down and out, it is the commuters problem to find their ways to their destinations. As for the train employees, tell them to apply long term no pay leave and return when the new train system is up and running. Can save a lot of manpower cost.

This decision will buy 5 to 10 years of peace or at least the criticisms and complaints would die down for sure. And during this period of waiting and getting more frustrated, the commuters would get to reflect on the half baked or half working system and might even say, at least it is working now and then. It is better than nothing. They would get to appreciate a flawed system when there is no working system available, just like in the land of the blind, the one eye jack is king, even if they demand to be paid in the millions.

And you know what would happen after a few months without the train? The commuters would be begging for the flawed train system to run again. Never mind if it breaks down everyday, at least sometimes it would be working. Then the operators can be reemployed with all the staff and run the flawed and daily breaking down train all over again and no one would dare to complain again. If they dare to complain, threaten to take down the train and to rebuild a new one and the commuters have to wait for another 5 or 10 years for it to be operational.

This solution is kinda sound like Redbean's Art of Management, don't you think so? Just kick the bucket further down the road to buy time and peace.


Fancy finding a Singaporean with a little talent

This titled was inspired by a report on Banyan Tree Holdings, a Singapore based hotel chain, building an eco friendly hotel in the backyard of the Singapore Zoo. The front page article in thenewpaper on 12 Oct read, ‘Fancy sleeping in luxury ,quoting the CEO elaborating about this novel and creative concept of building a hotel in the jungle for guests to experience what it was like living in the midst of a tropical jungle and about co existence with wildlife and nature.

On reflection, I think I will not be far wrong to say that all the CEOs of Singapore’s holiday attractions like the Zoo, the Bird Park, Botanic Garden, Sentosa are all foreigners. Not sure about the artificial garden in the heart of Singapore, could also be a foreigner. This one could be an exception as Singaporeans are very good in anything that is fake. And foreigners are heading most of the banks in Singapore, local banks and foreign banks. And foreigners are CEOs in many other institutions including institutions of higher learnings. Singaporeans first, do good, do together.

What do all this said about Singaporean talents? Is Singapore able to produce Singaporean talents for employments? I am very specific here, I am referring to Singaporean talents not locals. And to be more specific, Singaporeans that were born and bred here?

Why is it that Singaporean organizations are hiring foreigners as CEOs? Is it that our universities are not producing them, not doing the right stuff? What about our super talented students sent abroad to study in the best universities where these foreigners were educated? If it is due to a failure in our own education institutions, then sending them overseas should do the trick. But no, many of our best students went overseas also came back showing very little employable talent except to be civil servants or generals.

So what is the real stuff that makes the difference if it is not education? I think the foreigners are born with talents. Talents are born, and no amount of university educations, from the best universities could make the difference. There is no need to go for that expensive education. When one is born, one is either daft or talented.

Now you can understand the title, Fancy finding a Singaporean with a little talent. Singaporeans just don’t have talents and it is right and necessary to hire foreigners that are born talented to run Singaporean corporations and to provide jobs for Singaporeans. Without these talented foreigners, Singaporeans would be clueless about anything, except maybe queuing up to be Grab and Uber drivers. Or is that what they were taught in the universities, to become taxi drivers?

Let me be a little bit generous to say that actually Singaporeans still have two skills left. One is the ability to employ foreigners to hire more foreigners to replace Singaporeans. The other skill is to train jobless displaced Singaporeans to work overseas. This last skill is admirable, a heart of gold, thinking and caring for Singaporeans.


Xi Jinping, a man of his time

The leaders of China since 1949 had their roles cut out for them by history. The most difficult period was the unification of China and the driving out of foreign invaders that wanted to break up China as their respective colonies. During such turbulent times, a tough and strong leader with strong charismatic appeal in the form of Chairman Mao was necessary to bring about a new unified China and avoided disintegration. Chairman Mao was a leader of his time. Mao was an exceptional leader under very demanding conditions, the founding of a new nation rising from the ruins of historical forces.

When Deng Xiaoping took over the reign of China, his task was to rebuild China practically from scratch. Mao tried but with limited success in wanting to build a strong and self reliant China. Deng was a very brave and decisive man, to break away from doctrinal constraints and Mao’s ideological dominance and embarked on a new economic experiment, embracing the full force of capitalism and individual endeavour. Deng was instrumental in laying out the blue print and the foundation for rapid economic growth for China, breaking all rules as long as they worked.

Apart from opening up China to the world, Deng was best remembered for China to be patient, to bid its time, and plunged head on into economic development at all cost, even to ‘swallow bitter pill’, to stay away from major conflict whenever possible. Under his policy of rebuilding and reconstruction, learning everything from the world, China also had to suffer humiliation in silence by not fighting back in many occasions.

The two immediate successors to Deng, in Jiang Zeming and Hu Jintao were dedicated leaders/administrators to continue Deng’s work diligently, and yes, also taking a low profile, avoiding the limelight, avoiding playing an active role in world affairs. The works of Jiang and Hu saw China going through a carefully planned economy nation wide and the rise of China as an economically successful model of development. China moved from an underdeveloped nation state into a highly developed and industrialized country. The quality of life of its people and their economic well being took centre stage. During this period China successfully eradicated poverty country wide. The people were well fed and the country becoming more self sufficient in every field of economy and enterprise. China has arrived as a newly industrialized and rich nation.

Xi Jinping inherited a China that is very different from that of Mao and Deng. The efforts of Jiang and Hu as great disciples of Deng Xiaoping and dutifully executed his plans for China have bore great results. The basic problems of poverty, survival, a disunited country, were no longer problems to Xi. Xi Jinping would have to take China forward, to carve out a new role for this new China.

Xi Jinping is in uncharted territory. Just to continue economic growth like Jiang and Hu would not be good enough. He would have to show that he could stamp his own mark as a worthy leader of a new China. The rapid expansion of China’s economic development also brought about different sets of domestic problems with corruption being a troubling task for Xi to tackle. Xi’s performance in domestic policies has been commendable. While the country’s economy is steaming ahead, Xi has chosen to take China forward as a world leader. It is this new international role for China that puts Xi apart from his predecessors.

Stepping into the international arena would put Xi in direct conflict with the major world powers, particularly the USA. There would also be opposition from the pro American camp. These forces would stand in the way of Xi as was proven in the launching of the AIIB and the BRI but would not stop him in his pursuit for a greater China.

Under Xi’s leadership, China would take the initiative in world affairs. China is not going to ‘swallow bitter pills’ anymore. Deng’s policy is passé and a new course and direction are taking shape. China would assume its rightful place as a respectable world power in the international community. And there were many opportunities for Xi to stand firm, to hold his ground and make his mark.

The American provocations in the South China Sea put Xi to his first test. This was followed by the rising tension in the Korean peninsula, climate change, free trade, border disputes etc etc. The China of Xi Jinping is a world power with a bigger role and responsibility as expected by the nations of the world.

The deployment of the PLA in peacekeeping role in support of the UN missions, in protecting Chinese nationals overseas, and the setting up of military bases in Africa and the South China Sea are the manifestations of a China emerging from its past shadow as an active participant in international affairs, to play a part in keeping the world peaceful and safe. China is not only an economic powerhouse but also a responsible military power and would exercise its power if called upon, responsibly.

This is a new moment for China and a calling for a new kind of leadership in the likes of Xi Jinping, a world leader, not just the President of China. The geopolitical forces need an international statesman. The world is the new stage for China and Xi Jinping, the President of China, the man with a new calling.


We Have NO Shame - Part 2

Willing, Happy Victims of the Long Con!
Did Singapore Government officials and NTU/NUS Managers knowingly become willing participants of the World University Ranking scam and fraud for the past 10+ years?
Nunzio Quacquarelli, the founding partner of Quacquarelli Symonds or the QS Ranker was amazed at the reactions from governments and the universities because the QS rankings were NOT set up to serve University administrators!
"What we've been surprised is the extent to which governments and university leaders use the rankings to set strategic targets. We at QS think this is wrong.  Also "Ranks should not be a primary driver of university mission statements and visions.”   

Just read for yourself:

Authenticity is the utmost important characteristic of integrity.
How much longer should Singapore continue to participate in the bogus and fraudulent World University Rankings? Have we no shame?
Read more about our Decade of Shame.

We need to set an honest and genuine example for our NTU Alumni, our Singapore Community and the world;

Or else, we are much better off selling fake Rolex at NTU

As the Chief "replica" Rolex Salesman has said: "It's fake, but it's a Rolex!" And he's selling them like hot “Hello Kitty” dolls! Well, the NTU grad is just copying NTU's branding strategy.

WHEN can we stop our Shame? If not now?  If not by us?  

Read All the Links … It’s Time to Stop our Shame!  Now!


Justice - The Foundation Of Any Civilised Society


A Bind Lady, Sword in Her Right Hand Ready, Scale in Her Left Held High

You don't have to be a lawyer, judge, attorney general, advocate, solicitor or a law graduate to know what justice is. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be aware of what justice is. You don't even have to be literate, or having the ability to read, to feel what justice is. When you see an unjust act, you automatically know that it is unjust. Why?

Is justice or injustice of an action something intrinsic and distinct from questions of utility? In examining this it is necessary to determine whether a sense of justice exists in itself, or is derivative and formed by a combination of other feelings. Is this sense explicable by our emotional make-up, or is it a "special provision of nature"?

To answer this, we must ascertain what the distinguishing quality of justice is, if there is such a quality.

What are those things that are commonly classified as just or unjust?

1. It is considered unjust to deprive someone of his legal rights. However, this concept has exceptions. For example, a dictator may have legal rights he should not have - his rights may be the provision of a bad law to give him the power to control over the life and death of the other people. While people vary on whether bad laws can be justly disobeyed, all people agree that laws can be unjust. Therefore, the law cannot be the ultimate standard of justice.

2. It is considered unjust to deprive someone of something he has a moral right to possess. For example, his right to the salary he earned for his work; his right to the savings he deposited in a bank for safe-keeping and earn interests; or his right to his own children and properties. Although certain people may amend or interpret the basic laws embedded in the country's Constitution to subtly negate this right, it does not mean that it is just. So, again, the law cannot be the absolute standard of justice.

3. It is considered just that a person receives what he "deserves," and unjust that he obtains something he does not deserve. People are thought to deserve good things if they have done right, and evil things if they have done wrong. For example, a thief deserves to be imprisoned for seven years if he had stolen even one dollar; and an incompetent minister may be paid obscenely by the millions of dollars every year, but he may not deserve such reward at all. The former can be considered just though the penalty is too heavy, while the latter can obviously be seen as unjust though the culprit is not even punished.

4. It is considered unjust to violate an agreement with someone or disappoint expectations that one knowingly nurtured. For example, the violation of the marriage vows after one has sworn to abide by those vows; making the whole nation repeatedly affirm a national pledge for years and then disappoint them later by asserting that it is not a pledge but only an inspiration; or to promise in writing at the onset of the introduction of compulsory savings that citizens can withdraw their savings when they reached the age of 55, but disappoint them later by changing the withdrawal age to 60, 65, 70, etc. This is unjust. And maybe seen as unscrupulous too?

5. It is considered unjust to show favoritism and preference in inappropriate circumstances. However, it is not generally necessary to be impartial; for example, one doesn't have to be impartial in the selection of friends. The claim is rather that a person should only be influenced by those considerations that should apply in a given circumstance. For example, as a government official, one cannot favour one race over another race, irrespective of whether they belong to the majority or minority; but as a government tax collector, one can be partial in collecting more taxes from the rich than from the poor; or as an elected politician  representing the people, one cannot show favours to oneself, one's own relatives, or one's superior, over all the people he is supposed to represent.

6. It is considered unjust not to apply the law equally to every citizen, whether he is the President or a commoner. Equality is seen by many to be a component of justice. However, some judges may make an exception for the sake of expediency, convenience, or to navigate away from making judgment detrimental to their own livelihood or political interests. But this is not justice. So, again, we cannot take the law to be the absolute standard of justice.

The Justice League Vows To Eradicate All Forms Of Injustice

Given so many different applications of the concept of justice, it is hard to find what links them all together, and on what concept the sentiment of justice is based. Nevertheless, people do see justice as a unified concept and do feel a sentiment of justice regardless of whether they understand its foundation.

It helps to look at the word "Justice" from history. In most languages, the word's origin came from either positive law or authoritative custom. Thus, the most primitive element of justice is the idea of conformity to law. The Greeks and Romans realized that there could be bad laws, and thus justice came to be associated not only to those laws that ought to exist, but also those that should exist but do not.

There are certain things that we would not want legislation, so as to control the power of state. For example, we always think it right that unjust acts be punished but we also want to limit the scope of the state's right to punish in particular cases, such as compulsory death sentence and inflicting any form of cruelties and tortures. This has to do with practical concerns about extending the state's power, rather than a sense that the person should not be punished.

While this discussion has given a true account of the origin and development of justice, it does not show a distinction from other forms of morality. The idea of a penal sanction enters into any kind of wrong; in fact, something is considered wrong only when it is thought that the person should be punished either by law, opinion, or one's own conscience. Thus, the moral obligation, in general, comes from the idea of duty, the idea that a person may rightly be compelled to do something.

This concept of deserving or not deserving punishment is the essence of moral thinking in general. However, justice can be distinguished from other forms of morality by looking at the difference between perfect and imperfect obligations.

Imperfect obligations are those that no one person has the right to require of another. Perfect obligations are those that a person may demand of another. Justice corresponds with the idea of perfect obligation: it involves the idea of a personal right. In cases of injustice, the person who has been wronged has had his or her moral right impinged upon; it is, therefore, his or her moral right to seek redress and restitution.

Finally, justice is not an abstract concept. It is a sentiment about morality that many people share. It exists because people believe in justice. There also exists a diverse set of ideas about justice. These are united by the concept of rights, perfect and imperfect obligations.

What is a right?

A right means that a person has a valid claim that society should protect him against any violation. Many utilitarians dismiss the idea of rights as nonsense, and many debates about utilitarianism center around whether rights exist. In the next article, we will defend rights, and do so under a utilitarian framework.

Class action suit against the Govt on CPF savings

Philip Ang is proposing a class action suit against the Govt on accountability, transparency and the return of our CPF savings at 55. Below is his proposal posted in the TRE. I will definitely support this motion if it is finalized. Maybe Gilbert Goh should work with Philip Ang to hold a mass briefing at Hong Lim and collect signatures of CPF holders in support of this class action. Other forms of acceptance should be work out to make it easy for the rest of the CPF holders to accept this proposal, including house to house visit. The opposition parties could be roped in to help in this cause that affects the pocket of all Singaporeans.

While on this, the proposal should strictly be about Singaporeans and not about PRs and ‘locals’. Let them fight their own battles after all they could easily withdraw every cent they want when they decided to return to their home countries.
A class-action lawsuit against the government.

This will not be a mere request or begging the government for transparency and accountability in the management of hundreds of billions in CPF monies. CPF members will demand for a full set of accounts to be published.

On the assumption that GIC’s 6% rate of return claims are factual, we seek the return of the difference between the amount paid to CPF members and what GIC claims to have earned. Plus interest.

We also seek the return of our CPF savings at 55. Returning our CPF through monthly installments at 65 – till we die – is not acceptable.

Neither will we accept:
– Frequent tweaks of CPF rules which have impacted the well-being of hundreds of thousands of retirees.
– The appointment of unqualified CEOs such as former military personnel/civil servant with no prior fund management experience.
We are also opposed to government abuse of our retirement savings to:
– Conceal the size of our national reserves.
– Channel tens of billions to a single fund manager, government-linked GIC.

We seek a revamp of the failed CPF scheme which should be simplified. To increase retirement funding, a higher percentage of wages should be allocated to CPF SA with a corresponding reduction in CPF OA allocation.

The limits to the use of CPF MA – arbitrarily implemented by the government – for hospitalization, insurance premiums, etc must be removed. After all, this is our money.
The government should also appoint other non government-related fund managers to manage our CPF savings.

Besides the above, other factors will also be taken into consideration after CPF members have confirmed their support for the class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit will be funded by CPF members through crowdfunding. Depending on the number of CPF members involved, the cost should not be prohibitive, eg 10,000 members X $100 = $1 million or 100,000 members X $10 = $1 million.

Transparency and accountability are of utmost importance and details could be worked out at a later date.