1/17/2017

The USA must start to behave as a responsible stakeholder

No more regime change, no more proxy wars, no more invasion of countries, no more support for terrorist organizations, cut down on nuclear weapons, stop inciting and provoking wars to sell more weapons. Stop building military bases every where, stop building military alliances, these are the things the Americans are doing irresponsibly and contributing to a more dangerous world.

It is time the United Nations start to behave as a responsible world organization of peace and to rein in this evil Empire from threatening the world with its military might, with its nuclear arsenals of more than 7,000 nuclear warheads and its more than 10 carrier groups armed with nuclear weapons.

What is the purpose of having more than 7,000 nuclear warheads and building more nuclear warheads? What are the Americans up to, what are their intentions to have so many nuclear warheads, and building more? For peace, for aggression, or for the destruction of Mother Earth? When is the United Nations going to table a resolution to curb the wildness of this evil Empire from possessing more nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers to threaten the world? When is the United Nations going to condemn this evil Empire for conducting regime change, for invading small nations, for threatening small countries recklessly with false and fake excuses? Or the UN is only good at bullying small countries or at the behest of the US to attack small countries?

The United Nations must give notice to this evil Empire that it should stop building military bases around the world, close down existing military bases to make this world more peaceful and stable. The world will be a more peaceful place without the evil Empire labeling countries as enemies, as hostile, as belligerent when the one that is hostile and belligerent and the enemy of the world is the evil Empire. It is so used to tell the world which country is bad, evil, and to sanction or threaten those countries so branded by the evil Empire, to even attack them.

The countries of the world, the United Nations, must stand up to the evil ways of the evil Empire, charge its evil leaders for war crimes, for crimes against humanity. The evil Empire must not be allowed to get away from its evil acts, from its crimes against humanity with impunity.

The United Nations should push for sanctions against the evil Empire for supporting and funding terrorist organizations, for threatening to use force against small countries, to disarm and destroy its nuclear arsenals. Obama talked about a world free from nuclear weapons but approved and committed more trillions of American dollars to build more nuclear weapons.

What nonsense, what hypocrisy!!!

The world would be a safer place with no nuclear weapons. Why is the United Nations condoning the Americans and on the side of the evil Empire in imposing sanctions on Iran and North Korea that possessed only a handful of nuclear weapons but did not have the ability to deliver them but keep quiet and allowed the Americans to hoard the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, that could destroy the world many times over?

This is hypocrisy at the highest level. The United Nations must take the evil Empire to task, to rein in its warmongering activities around the world, to denounce and condemn the evil Empire for conducting wars, for being trigger happy, for killing millions of innocent people every where.

My ranting would not do any good, but at least it tells the world the whole truth, honest and truthful, not dishonest politicking. The world must face the truth, the reality, that the evil Empire with its hoards of nuclear weapons and aircraft carrier groups are threatening world peace and the destruction of civilization. The American Empire today is not for peace but for world hegemony, world domination, existing for the sake of the Empire and would do anything to any country that shows sign of taking a chip off the Empire. The American Empire is behaving exactly as the evil Empire in the Star Wars series.

UN Resolution and the Rule of Law

The UN recently passed a resolution telling the Israelis to vacate the occupied land belonging to the Palestinians. The US abstained and the resolution was passed by 14 votes to nil. Now, is this resolution now a law, an international law, a law passed by the UN?

This resolution is not the so called ‘UN backed’ ruling by an arbitration court in The Hague that acted more like a kangaroo court. This is the UN itself passing the resolution. This resolution has very serious implications for small states. It is about the rule of law and about the UN passing laws to protect the interests of small states.

The Israeli govt is opposing this resolution and declared that they would not abide by it. The USA is also not going to abide by it and its congress is going to rule against it, to throw it out. The USA and Israel are not going to abide by a UN resolution or law. They are not going to follow international law, they are not going to abide by the rule of law.

What would Singapore govt’s position be on this? Would Singapore shout at the USA and Israel to abide by the rule of law, by the UN resolution? What is our principled position on this? If Singapore finds the rulings of the arbitration court, a NOT UN backed organization so important, would a UN resolution be even more important to uphold?

Or would Singapore compromise its principles and look the other way because USA and Israel are our close allies?

1/16/2017

Terrex - Who bullies who?

I have been flattered by some readers for the fictional pieces that I wrote. I am glad that they enjoyed them, like fine wines with full bodies and a lasting after taste. Maybe I should write something more serious to give a clearer picture on the Terrex Incident.

Many commentators have responded angrily that China reacted and seized the Terrex APVs. Many simply pointed the fingers at China as a bully, a super power bullying the peesai of the world. Just think carefully at the two words, 'reacted' and 'peesai'. Peesai is quite easy to understand, an insignificantly little piece of shit in the nose, too small to mean anything.

'Reacted' tells a story by itself, just like the word, 'returned' to honest politics. 'Reacted' means it is a reaction to something, to some action or many actions, and these caused a reaction. A bully does not react. A bully acts at his whims and fancy. A bully always makes the first move, to bully someone he thinks he can bully and get a way with it. This could be a definition of bully in the context of the Terrex Incident.

Before China reacted, what happened? What did Singapore do for China to react? And would China have reacted, seized the APVs if Singapore had done nothing against China? Think slowly and carefully. Don't over react impulsively. The ferrying of the APVs and training in Taiwan have been going on for many decades and China closed one eye, pretending not to see. Now, does the word 'react' becomes clearer, that everything could have gone on as per normal if there was nothing for China to react?

China was our good friend, so said Vivian, but no one else. No one else dares to say or is saying China was our good friend. What did China do to harm this relationship? Zilch, absolutely zero. Ok there was this Suzhou Industrial Park thing that Singapore and Singaporeans are unhappy about. But there are many levels of relationship going on, both sides benefitting from them and wanting more. There were many delegations visiting both sides and trade numbers were going up year by year.

Ask this simple question, what had Singapore been doing all these years towards this good relationship that China was prepared to look the other way over the One China Policy and Starlight? Think carefully and slowly to recall the things that Singapore had done that were not very friendly to a good friend and our top trading partner. Think of the derogatory jokes in Washington. Think of the very serious comments about asking the Americans to bring their military forces here to balance China. Think about the persistent calls for China to follow the rule of law in the SCS. Think of the accusation that China was applying the divide and rule to divide Asean. Think of the insistence for China to accept the kangaroo court rulings in The Hague. Think of the principled calls on freedom of navigation in the SCS as if only Singapore is concerned about it and no one else.  And if Singapore did not tell China so, they would be no freedom of navigation. Think of the frequency of negative articles about China in the media, almost daily bashing. Think of the walkout by our FM at the Asean Summit in Laos. Think of the pushing for the SCS issue to be included in the Non Aligned Movement statement in Venezuela and the theatrics of the Singapore Ambassador in Beijing. Think of what Singapore had been doing to poke at China, like a peesai poking at the eyes of a dragon and thinking it could get away with it. These were only a few of the things better not said. There were others like TPP, no Middle Kingdom, Americans operating from Changi to harass China in SCS etc etc.

When all these things were happening, the arrogance of it all was that the little peesai thought it was punching above its weight and nothing would happen. The big 'bully' could not do anything while being bullied and poked by a little peesai over and over again. And the height of arrogance was that the little peesai thought that things would be normal, Starlight could continue going on and on, the big 'bully' would continue to be bullied and would continue to look the other way, afraid to show that it was angry, fearful of the little peesai punching above its weight and using the big 'bully' as the punching bag.

Now the big 'bully' said enough is enough, and reacted. The big 'bully' reacted! And the little peesai screamed, bully, bully, bully!

Who is the real bully? Who is bullying who? Who has been bullying who? No, never poke leh! I am an angel. Honest, trust me, I swear I never poke at China.

1/15/2017

Singapore Motor Show 2017 - The beautiful models




It is a hard fight between the latest car models and the feminine models for attention.

MacDonald reviewing its non halal food policy

Read about this on the news and recalled another piece of news about this policy over the weekend. Cakes or food that is not halal cannot be brought into MacDonald restaurants. I felt guilty as I used to buy takeaway char kway teow or roast pork for dinner and then queued at MacDonald restaurant to buy hamburger, or actually beef burger with the takeaways in plastic bags. I did not know that MacDonald has such a policy and that I had unintentionally violated this policy. My apologies, would not do it again.

For MacDonald to announce that it has such a policy is a good thing so that its customers would know and would not break the policy unknowingly. MacDonald as a business should have its right to have whatever policies to make its customers happy. Just make the policy known, put up big banners at the main door so that no one could miss it and would not bring non halal food into the restaurants.

Now, why is MacDonald reviewing this policy? I have no problem with MacDonald having no halal food in its premises policy. I either don’t bring non halal food into MacDonald or just don’t patronize MacDonald. No big deal. There are other choices available.

What is the point of making a policy public and within a week and starts to talk about reviewing it? We used to have the very popular Banquet Food Court that sold only halal food. It was their policy and preferred choice of doing business. I used to patronize the Banquet Food Court too. Unfortunately all closed down.

Let the restaurants make their policy choice and the customers make their own choices who to patronize or where to eat.  Everyone happy.  Singapore is a multi cultural and multi religious country with plenty of choices for everyone with each free to do what he pleases.

1/14/2017

Singapore Motor Show 2017 - Latest Models

Tomorrow will post all the beautiful models.

Assholes – The CPF is the people’s life savings

Stop having more designs on the people’s life savings. The money is saved by the people over a life time for retirement. Do not think that it is your money and you can suka suka anytime decide what it should be used for without the people’s consent. Just take and take.
 

First you have compulsory CPF Life and then Medishield Life. Now what, compulsory Eldershield Life? Who the fuck do you think you are to decide for the people how to use their life savings? Don’t you think you have taken enough of the people’s money through the sale of HDB flats, the minimum sum schemes and the two compulsory CPF Life and Medishield Life Schemes?  Not enough, now wanting to take more in another compulsory Eldershield Life Insurance Scheme?
 

The oldies did not have anything left for you to take. They need to eat and pay bills, and the few dollars left are all that they have. They no longer have incomes to feed your million dollar salaries. Spare the old folks. Stop having more designs on their money. If you really have a heart, cough up some money from the state coffer or divert the excess premiums collected from the other compulsory schemes for the oldies.
 

Remember, if your intention is ill conceived, you will have to answer for it one day. Don’t mess around with the blood, sweat and tear money of the hapless oldies. All these compulsory schemes were not part of the contract of CPF savings to start with.  The people put money in the CPF for their retirement, not for you to do as you pleased. Their life time savings are not for you to take, not for you to spend. It is very easy to take the money from the defenceless oldies. Remember, there is no free lunch, what you take you must pay back in some ways.
 

Taking the people’s life saving like sing songs, no need to ask the people’s permission, just legislate it. Go and find out what is the meaning of ‘chek ark’. There is no good reason to take the people’s money against their wishes. It is as good as daylight robbery.

1/13/2017

The evil Empire has declared war on China

According to a Bloomberg report filed by Isabel Reynolds, Rex Tillerson, the State Secretary designate, said these: China must be denied access to artificial islands built in the disputed waters…a failure to respond to China’s actions had allowed it to "keep pushing the envelope" in the South China Sea. "We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that first the island-building stops and second your access to those islands is also not going to be allowed,"’

This kind of irresponsible statements coming from the trigger happy evil Empire is trouble to the world. China would not budge and would put up a fight. So what do the Americans think they want to do? This is no longer a game of chicken. China would confront the aggressive American military head on, might with might. Once the Americans make the first move, it is all the way, come what may.

And this cock American said this, ‘They are taking territory or control, or declaring control of territories that are not rightfully China’s.’ Did this cock Tillerson remember that their forefathers invaded America, killed all the native Americans they called Red Indians and robbed their land, now called the USA? Was the continent of North America, inhabited by hundreds of millions of native Americans, rightfully the land of the European Americans?

This cock thinks that China would sit there and wait to be pushed out of their islands. China though still trying to be diplomatic, would be sending all their military weapons and reinforcement to the islands and hardened their defences and in waiting for the Americans to come ashore. This is not 1492 when Columbus landed in America and with all the weapons in hand, went about killing the poorly armed natives that died fighting the European invaders.  The Americans must be prepared for the sinking of a few aircraft carriers if they are mad and reckless enough to try this game again.

Tighten your seat belt for a rough ride with the world’s Number One warmonger rattling its sabre and calling for war.  They failed to get the Aquino govt to do the fighting, now they have removed the veil and showing their hands behind all the tensions in the SCS. They are going to do the fighting themselves as no Asean country would be stupid enough to want to die fighting for the American interest. Oops, I stand corrected as there could be some silly ones out there thinking that they could fight on the side of the Americans and don’t mind looking like dead heroes.

SCS is not the only region that is going to see high tension and threats of war.  The Americans are also raising temperature in Europe by sending troops and tanks to the Russian border to confront Russia. Now, how many silly Asians still stick to their unthinking view that the Americans are peaceful people, for world peace when they are raising tensions and threatening wars everywhere? Oh, it is the fault of the Russians and the Chinese, and the North Koreans, and the Iranians and the Arab countries that the Americans have to go to wars with them, murdering Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein like a past time.

Stupidity has no cure.

1/12/2017

Honest dishonesty at work

I saw this runner on the TV screen. ’99.9% O level students passed at least one subject’. Wow, what a great achievement. Our education system or the teachers have done well, very well. Or is it the students have done exceptionally well? 99.9%  passed! Wait a minute, passed at least one subject? What does this mean? Passed one subject also passed? I have left school for so long and I know that in my time passing one subject is as good to repeat in Sec 4. Passing 3 subjects also considered failed in my time. You need to pass at least 4 or 5 subjects and with some decent grades to pass and get a Grade 3. Now passed one subject can already, passed?

I am out of touch. Is this the reason why the employers have no faith in our education system when passing one subject is considered passed and something to rejoice, to shout about? What is the truth? Would the student with one or two passes go home and announce to papa and mama, ‘I passed, one subject’ and get rewarded?

The statement is very honest or very dishonest or honest dishonest? Ok, there was another banner that stated something like 84.3% passed at least 5 subjects. Though we must not embarrass or discourage those that did not do well, but we must be honest with them, that one pass does not qualify to pass the whole examination. Or maybe nowadays there is no such thing as pass or fail an examination. Just count the number of passes good enough. What a merry world of semantics and make beliefs. Yes, say the right things and hear the good stuff.

The world’s Number One nuclear power threatening North Korea


The world’s Number One nuclear power, with more than 7,000 nuclear warheads that can turn the world into Stone Age, is threatening North Korea for wanting to test fly an ICBM. It is saying that they can have all the nuclear weapons but no one else can. They murdered Saddam Hussein and burnt down the whole country of Iraq, on the excuse that Iraq had WMD. Now it is alleging that the North Koreans are dangerous because they had a handful of unsophisticated nuclear weapons and demanding the world to take action against North Korea, claiming that North Korea is going to throw their nuclear weapons at everyone, including Singapore. And many silly bananas believe this myth. Why, because the Americans told them so.

Do they know why Iraq was invaded but not Iran? Because Iran has nuclear weapons and can hit back with nuclear weapons. That is why Iran is safe but not Iraq. Iraq could not hit back. Now North Korea too has nuclear weapons and is safe from being attacked by the Americans. Any country that wants to be safe from American attacks must possess nuclear weapons.

And what is Trump saying despite having a monopoly of nuclear weapons? The combined nuclear weapons of the rest of the world are not even half of what the Americans have. And Trump is saying that because of North Korea, America must ‘greatly strengthen and expand’ its nuclear capabilities. What kind of American silliness is this?

What kind of shitty heads did the silly Asians have to accept this kind of cowboy logic? Americans have the right to own all the nuclear weapons and to threaten every country with nuclear weapons and the rest of the world cannot have nuclear weapons and no one is telling the Americans off for threatening smaller countries with war and destruction?

No wonder the Americans are ruling the world. The silly Asians accept this as the inevitable reality, to be ruled and controlled by the Americans. And the best part, they love it, and happily accept this state of affair. But not the North Koreans, they are going to show their middle finger to the Americans.

Who is the stupid one? Who is the mad one? When is the UN going to tell the Americans to reduce their nuclear arsenal for a nuclear free world that Obama was talking about? Or a nuclear free world is one where no one can have nuclear weapons except the Americans, to rule and threaten everyone with nuclear annihilation?

Ask the Americans what is the purpose of having 7,000 nuclear warheads and increasing? For peace?

1/11/2017

Singapore is the beacon of political honesty

As I said, I am going to write something honest about Singapore. I am going to say the darnest thing about political honesty. Tharman has said his peace and everyone is aroused by what he said and getting very excited. If you missed it, here it is, ‘To tackle social and political issues, return to 'honest politics’. The whole social media is abuzz by this statement. This is the most politically honest statement coming from Tharman.

And I agree with Tharman that we must return to ‘honest politics’ when tackling social and political issues. Singapore is what it is today because of such honesty. Singapore moved from Third World to First World because our politicians and political system are honest.  Wait, wait, don’t throw eggs at me so early. Let me justify my case ok?

Honesty is an inherent trait in Singaporeans and more so in our politicians. Some may say not so sure about opposition politicians. My claim is based on a few assumptions, oops, a few fundamental facts. We have the most well educated population, not counting the foreigners who came here with degrees from genuine degree mills and well respected and recognized as genuinely good. The system has acknowledged their goodness that now they are saying degrees are not important. Honesty is infectious and the foreigners have also become honest like us, and for that we accept their degrees with grace and generosity. No need to check any more to embarrass them.  Also our educated population is educated from world best universities and world best education system, so must be good and can tell the difference between honesty and dishonesty.

With such a clever population, there is no way dishonest politicians can bluff the people unless the people are really daft, a congenital defect. Being dishonest is bluffing, lying, cheating and even conning the people. The very fact that the people continued to vote the politicians into power speaks for itself. The people, all so well educated, cannot be so stupid and cannot tell the difference between honesty and dishonesty. They believe in an honest govt made up of honest politicians saying and doing all the honest things. The whole world must be envious of our politicians. The only element that could undermine an honest govt, money or corruption, has already been taken out from the equation. For that, the people or at least 70% have voted and confirmed that we have an honest govt and honest politicians. This is an indisputable fact.

And our politicians are so honest that they often spoke their mind, honestly. They did not have to hide or lie to tell people they are more than the lesser mortals. They believe that dignity comes from having a big salary. See how honest they are, no need to bluff. They honestly said they need millions or their lifestyle would be affected and would not want to sacrifice their privacy to be politicians. They also believe that if the govt pays good salaries, in the millions, you will have honest politicians or at least no politician will be dishonest with money matters. Town council management or some town council management may be an exception. At least they all started as angels but they cannot be angels all the time. This is honesty.

And honesty is how all the social and political problems are solved here. The latest is the amendment to protect children under police investigation. There is also the urgency to have a minority president and this is done quickly and honestly.  It has absolutely nothing to do with Tan Cheng Bock. The Terrex Incident is also a good case of honesty and how it should be handled honestly for the good of everyone. I am waiting for them to produce the declaration forms in the media as proof on what was actually declared. Honesty will dispel all the speculations and guessing, everything will be transparent and honestly declared.

And honesty means that when they made mistakes they own up. Even when mistakes of hundreds of millions of dollars or billions of dollars were made, they put it on public records.  Our govt is so clean and so honest. This is something the people must be proud of. When they want to fix things they also said so. This is true honesty of the highest level in politics.

I dunno when they said Singapore belongs to everyone is an honest statement or not. But when they said Singapore needs 6.9m population I am sure they are honest about it, that it is only a planning parameter.

I can go on and on about political honesty with many more examples. Singapore would not have come this far if politics and social problems were tackled  dishonestly. It cannot be. Anyone or any politician that is dishonest would be caught with his pants down in an honest system. 

It is time to return to honest politics. What, have we gone somewhere or fell asleep and must now return to honest politics? My apologies, just a Freudian slip. It is good and an honest thing to do to return to the right path should one go astray.

1/10/2017

Another Little Brown Brother got insulted

It has to take a Duterte to wake up the Pinoys that no matter what, they are just Little Brown Brothers to the Americans, to be used to serve the Empire’s business, to fight proxy wars, to challenge the enemies of the Empire with the masters shouting from behind, providing arms and vocal support.

Indonesia just found out, my goodness, they haven’t woken up yet, that the literature and military doctrines of the Australians used them as enemies and were insulting their Pancasila, including their belief in God and inciting Indonesian Papua to be independent from Indonesia. Quoting an Agencies’ report ‘Indonesian military spokesman Major General Wuryanto said, “all forms of cooperation”, including military exercises and education and exchange programmes, have been suspended indefinitely.’

Who do the Indonesians believe were the ‘enemies’ in the Australian military exercise materials? China? The Australians rehearsing all their military exercises in anticipation of a Chinese attack on their territories? But it is not all in vain. Indonesia has started to question the increasing presence of American forces stationed in Australia, for what purposes, to prepare for an invasion of China?

Little Brown Brothers must always remember that they cannot morph into anything else, not into white brothers. The historical experience of the Australians meddling in Indonesian affairs, particularly in Timor, in Papua New Guinea, would not go away and would be repeated at the opportune moment.

This little deputy white sheriff is meddling too much in a region that it should not and is not behaving like a little sheriff, thinking that it is a big regional power. One day it would be overrun by Indonesia to put it in its rightful place.

Behind the headlines, looking inside the skulls

How  would Trump deal with a trigger happy North Korea? Jeremy Koh

To tackle social and political issues, return to 'honest politics': DPM Tharman

Above are two headlines in Channel News Asia on 8 Jan 17. In the first headline, the mindset of the author, Jeremy Koh, is that Kim Jong Un is a trigger happy man, or the North Koreans are. How did he come to this conclusion? What did the North Koreans did to be branded as trigger happy? Did they go to war, commit terrrorist acts? Or they were testing their missiles and nuclear weapons? If testing missiles and nuclear weapons are considered trigger happy, would the USA be branded as trigger happy, the most trigger happy as they have tested the most missiles and nuclear weapons and possessed the most and threatened to use them in the most occasions? Or is conducting military exercises considered trigger happy? Which country is conducting war games all over the world? North Korea?

What about countries engaged in wars under the slightest provocations or fabricating false information like WMD, would they be considered trigger happy? Which country has been conducting wars all over the world? Not trigger happy?

Or North Korea is trigger happy because the Americans said so? A little critical thinking and common sense would easily identify who is the real trigger happy country. No prize for the correct answer.

Singaporeans are not called daft for no reasons. Their daftness is legendary.

 

The second question is an eye opener. Returning to honest politics. Who have been indulging in dishonest politics and who needs to return to honest politics?  See the halo over my head?

Ok, let’s not engage in speculations, allegations or name calling. Let those honest people engaging in dishonest politics to start to change to honest politics. No need to ask them to own up and confess that they have been engaging in dishonest politics. That would be asking too much.

All those engaging in dishonest politics please kee chiu.

Thank you Tharman for saying the darnest thing. I know that you are referring to the international players and this is not meant for domestic consumption.

PS. Any cat wants to declare it does not eat fish and wants to turn vegetarian?

1/09/2017

From Terrex to Terex

Virgo sent me this. Is this the result of our Terrex? Melted down and morphed into this?

There are merits in the American political system

The pro independence kids in Hong Kong have a serious contention about their lack of independence to elect their Chief Executive of preference. The Chief Exedcutive was shortlisted by China and they felt offended, short changed, as if the election of the Chief Executive of a country b the people is a universal democratic formula. Did they know that Singapore also inherited the same British democratic system and the Prime Minister was elected by the political leaders among themselves, not by the people? Singapore or Britain did not elect a politician to be the Prime Minister. The politicians elect among themselves.

The American system is different in that they more or less elected their President directly. There is a presidential election though it still has to go through a second election by an Electoral College of Electors or people’s representative to confirm the election by the American public. This is not what makes the American system particularly more democratic than the British system.

What is distinctive in the American system is that the elected President has a free hand to handpick the best men and women as his ministers to assist and support him in the running of the country. These men and women are the Secretaries or equivalent of Ministers, but not elected by the people, not necessary politicians. It goes for several other top appointments of the govt as well, including the judiciary and finance.

The key difference here is that these men and women are not elected by the people but experts in their own fields or at least are known to be experts in their professions related to the appointments. Notice the glaring difference between these Secretaries and the Ministers in the British system? The latter are politicians and not necessary experts in their ministries. The stark inadequacy of the British system is best seen at home when you have eye surgeon helming the foreign ministry, cancer surgeon helming the defence ministry, generals helming education, transport, internal affairs, etc etc.

The obvious Achille’s heel in the British system is that the politicians are politicians and not necessary experts or professionals and are put into ministries that they have no clue about, not train in, no expertise in but are expected to perform like they know everything. Some may perform, some perform hopelessly.

In reality, not many people are so talented to be experts in things they are not trained in or even in things they are trained in. Some may be good in passing examinations but unable to apply what they learned in schools. Politicians are politicians. Are politicians experts in managing ministries like defence, foreign affairs, health, education etc etc. In many instances politicians are like salespersons, good at presentation or presenting what they want to sell, or like actors/actresses but without the ability to do the professional stuff. They are not knows all.

There is a caveat here of course. Despite the obvious flaws in the British system when non practitioners or non experts are put to helm important ministries, Singapore is Unique. Our talents are super talents, at least by the measures of their multi million dollar salaries. And they really become experts overnight in the ministries they are put in charge.  Even at the lower level they could become experts and advisers in all fields ranging from sports, arts, cultural, clans or trade associations.

This is the great difference in Singapore.  Though everyone can see the weaknesses in the British political system, when put into practice in Singapore, it still works, or at least it works in the past and the momentum seems to prove that it is still working, for how long we don’t know.

Conceptually, the American system is more realistic and practical. The President picks the best experts of the respective fields to do the demanding jobs of the respective office. A general to head defence ministry, a finance experts to head finance, health expert to head health ministry etc etc. Logical isn’t it? Of course there are counter arguments that a soldier is bad to head the defence ministry and likewise a doctor to head health….

What do you think? Is there a need to modify our system to allow experts to head ministries that need and demand people with the professional or relevant training and experience to helm them? The American system has no mismatch problem.  Ours definitely have, but saved by the abundance of super talents born to be knows all, to become expert in anything overnight. That is why we did not hear of mismatch in our political system, at least we never hear of any minister or politician being a mismatch in his job.

The British system is flawed and its derivative systems, if copied profusely, would be equally flawed. You not only did not elect the PM/Chief Executive, you have politicians of all colours trying to make the best of their appointments in ministries they have no expertise in.

1/08/2017

Nasty accident at Choa Chu Kang Crescent



At about 2.10pm I heard a series of crashing and banging sound. It was so loud that I thought a train had fallen off its track. It turned out to be a SMRT extra long bus crashing into the corner of a HDB flat just outside a 711 store. From the crashing noise I expected many injuries as a result. Fortunately only a young boy was slightly hurt, more likely shocked.

The path leading to the 711 store used to have a lot of pedestrians. It was so damn lucky no one was there to be crushed by the bus. The pics told what could actually happen, with a Mercedes stuck to the back of the bus just off a traffic junction. Was the bus crossing the junction and had to avoid another vehicle making a right turn?

Benjamin Lim - barking up the wrong tree?

Below is an extract from a CNA report on 7 Jan 17.

SINGAPORE: From April 2017, young suspects below the age of 16 under criminal investigation will be accompanied by a grown-up during interviews under a new Appropriate Adult Scheme for Young Suspects (AAYS) announced by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Friday (Jan 6).
The Appropriate Adults (AAs) will be independent, trained volunteers whose job at police interviews will be to look out for signs of distress as well as aiding communication and providing emotional support. They must remain neutral and not advocate for the young suspect, nor provide legal advice or disrupt the course of justice in any way....

On whether young people would benefit from having a neutral adult present at interviews, he said: "You have to balance between having to interview quickly in order to make sure there's no information leakage, and the need to consider whether it's helpful for a 12- or 13-year-old to have someone else present at a police station ... Regardless of how the police treats him, he's still in uniform."

The initiative comes in the wake of 14-year-old Benjamin Lim’s suicide in January 2016, after he underwent a police investigation over alleged molestation.

The impression I have after reading all the reports in the media about how the school officials and police officers handled Benjamin Lim's case, is that there was absolutely no issue at all. There were a lot of tender loving care shown to Benjamin, everyone was so kind and caring, so sensitive, and there was no undue pressure on Benjamin. My conclusion is that this amendment may be superfluous and an over reaction. When Benjamin was handled professionally by all the trained professionals, following proper procedures and protocols, and with kindness, consideration, and above all, sensitivity, anything that was wrong should not be on the part of the police protocol. The amendment is kind of an over reaction, an after thought that may not be really necessary. Some may label it populist. Or have they found some reasons to do?

There is a saying that if things are not wrong, don't try to fix it. Fix it only when it is wrong.

And the police were not in uniform in the school, that helped except that maybe one or two police officers would be less intimidating on a child. It is good that Shanmugam acknowledged the point that police in uniform is intimidating to a child, but not in Benjamin's case. Only in the police station that the police were in uniform. Maybe the amendment could include police not to be in uniform when handling cases involving children.

The appointment of a trained volunteer to look for signs of stress sounds proper and would be right if the police protocol and procedure are intimidating to young people. But were these present in Benjamin's case that led to his stress level and eventual suicide? Any meaningful linkage?  If I remember, it was reported that Benjamin did not show any sign of stress at all. What I thought would be more appropriate in the case of children is to have someone close to him, like parents whom he is comfortable with, to provide the emotional and psychological support needed in such situation. Another stranger that the child does not know could hardly be reassuring to the child, and could add more pressure instead.

Which is more important, to look out for signs of stress or to provide the child with some sense of security, that he is not alone, and the parents are there with him? In the latter case, there will definitely be lesser stress than in the former case that could add to the stress level.

Shanmugam also pointed out that the police were very sensitive in Benjamin's case and suicide is more a case of the individual.

Oh, the MOE also introduced new measures to protect school children when investigated by the police, like being accompanied by teacher, counsellor or someone from the school.

No one deem it right, necessary and important for the parents of a child to be present. Why? Can a stranger in whatever profession be good enough in such cases? Touch your heart.

I hope Benjamin and his family could be comforted that his death is not in vain and the new measures would prevent other children from going through the same ordeal as Benjamin and no more Benjamin will fall in the future.

What do you think?

Can Abe be trusted?



Abe went to Pearl Harbour to lay a wreath and the Japanese made it very clear that he was not there to apologise for the sneaky attacks against the Americans. Actually he needs not apologise for the Americans believe the Japanese are honourable warriors living by the samurai code of honour, no sneaky attacks. This is what the Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshida Suga said of the visit, ‘The visit to Pearl Harbour was to console the souls of the war dead, not to apologise.’
What does he meant by making an official visit but still refusing to apologise? Japan did not do anything wrong. There is nothing to apologise about. Get the message?

And during the visit Abe pompously said, ‘We must never repeat the horrors of war again. This is the solemn vow we, the people of Japan, have taken.’  No more wars, no more atrocities! Then why did Abe and his cabinet tore awaiting the pacifist Constitution that forbid Japan to go to war unless being attacked? Why is Japan so eager to engage in wars overseas, to support wars overseas, including fighting alongside the Americans?

How to believe someone talking about peace and no war when the same person tore away a pacifist Constitution that would not allow Japan to go to war, remilitarize his armed forces with bigger defence budgets and happily sending his soldiers to theatres of war all over the world.

Is Abe a liar or an honourable man to be trusted not to conduct war? The refusal to apologise to the victims of a sneaky attack in Pearl Harbour speaks volumes about what is inside Abe’s head, what he stands for. He did not see it necessary to visit the war memorials of all the countries that Japan invaded except this one in Pearl Harbour, all because Obama had to visit the memorial site in Hiroshima first. He has never visited the memorial sites in Koreas and China, two countries that took the worst blow from the invading Japanese Imperial armies. But he had in many occasions visited the Yasukuni Shrine that honoured the war criminals of Japan that invaded Asia and South East Asia. 

What did all these said of this man Abe and of the Japanese people?