Friday, March 27, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
Monday, January 19, 2015
Pope Francis was making the point that we must be careful what we say or otherwise face the consequence. Unfortunately, some will read that as justification for the assassinations, and can expect more in future. As some have observed, that was not Pope Francis' finest impromptu "speech". After all, wasn't it Jesus who taught to turn the other cheek, to forgive our enemies? The King James Bible puts this very eloquently::
But I (Jesus) say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...
God can take care of his own honour.
A person once remarked that Islam is a vicious religion. Whether we agree with that or not is obviously our personal view. But I think, in the light of the Charlie Hebdo killings and the aftermath, that many are silently agreeing with this assessment. Silently because otherwise, these innocent people will be next on the target list. The terrorists will not allow their Prophet to be talked about negatively. But they cannot prevent people to think so silently.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Saturday, August 02, 2014
Compassvale Road, in Sengkang, has been identified as a Dengue cluster. We have been told, through print, web and TV media, to do the mozzie wipeout, and exhorted to anything and everything to prevent mosquitos from breeding. Yet, we have this potential monster of a breeding ground just next to an identified cluster.
|Picture taken on 20 July 2014, from the overhead bridge near Kopitiam Square|
|Picture taken on 2 August 2014. from the overhead bridge near Kopitiam Square|
|Picture taken on 2 August 2014. Kopitiam Square is at the back.|
|Source: www.x-dengue.com. Retrieved 2 August 2014|
Saturday, January 11, 2014
So I was surprised and somewhat disturbed by a report online that revealed that 2 doctor-inventors, apparently citizens of Singapore, had given up their legal fight over intellectual property rights they claimed over an app (Mobile First Aid Post) with Singapore's Ministry of Defense (Mindef). According to one of these inventors, the reason for giving up was that they did not have enough money to continue the legal action. If this were true, it is disturbing fact indeed. It is claimed that Mindef had "three sets of lawyers" and that in a war of attrition, these inventors couldn't win, and perhaps even if they did win, it would be a pyrrhic one.
The thing I find disturbing is why would Mindef, a public institution that exists at the pleasure of the electorate, and funded entirely by tax payers, could find it necessary to engage an army of lawyers to defend itself? What is the justification for this? Yes, the case might involve IP issues across different countries, but is it that complex as to warrant the legal firepower employed? I am not siding with one or the other party in the case. I do not know enough beyond what has been reported about the case.
But I am concerned about why, as a taxpayer, so much of my money is being spent on this legal tussle, and against its own taxpayers - people who feed it, at that. Mind-boggling sometimes, the things that go on.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Just what is wrong with some drivers in Singapore anyway? They act like they own the road, and if you give them a plane, they'd likely feel, and yes, act like they own the skies too. So what is the reason for this rant? After all, Singapore drivers, or at least enough of them, have been known to be an impatient lot. Well I got a taste of that today.
You see, I was crossing the path that leads into a carpark in a building. It was a small entrance, no barrier and good only for a car to enter at any one time. The width of the passage (I wouldn't even call it a road) was so narrow, about 4 strides wide, that one could be forgiven to miss it as a passageway for cars. As I was crossing it, a car honked at me. It was obviously attempting to drive into the pathway into the building. I was obviously annoyed, and would have thrown a rotten egg at it if I had one then. However under the circumstance, restraint is the better part of valor and I let it pass. But I got to wondering why the driver can't even overlook an obvious unintentional instance of "trespass". No, let me correct that. I wasn't trespassing. I was just using a public facility. The road didn't belong to me, nor for that matter, to the driver of the car. So what right had he/she to honk his/her horn at me? Absolutely no right of way nor right of reason. In fact the driver can be accused of threatening a member of the public. What if I had not heeded that horn? If we follow the logic, he/she would have to get out of the car to take physical action - a threat if ever there was one. If you think I am exaggerating, then think again. What good would honking at me accomplish anyway? The only rational reason I can think of is the driver just takes pleasure in shocking and frightening me. Now why would anyone do that? I wasn't threatening the driver in any anyway, nor obstructing him/her, intentionally. In any case, it would take me at most 4 seconds to cross the path. Can't wait? Must fight? Easy to act thus when you are behind the wheel. Bloody coward.
Obviously courtesy, kindness, graciousness, consideration are not part of the driver's vocabulary, nor mental makeup. They say what goes around comes around. Let the driver beware that the same medicine will be doled out to him/her one day.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
So I was amused when Minister Khaw reported his ignorance. I wonder how young his "young activists" are. Is this another case of being fed the wrong and/or outdated information from the ground or being out of touch in the first place, or perhaps both?
Yes, I agree with Minister Khaw that couples, while waiting for their flats could get married, rent an apartment, get a head start in making babies, and then move into their newly minted HDB BTO (whatever) castle. But the argument against this has always been that the money spent on "non-recoverable" rental could have gone into payment for/investing in a HDB apartment, so why spend when you can invest, right? This was exactly what my fiancee and I thought when we embarked on our marital journey more than 20 years ago. From the wisdom of the young activists I see that nothing much has changed all these many years.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
The point is that the PDPC, as CASE puts it, "has back-pedalled and diluted the intention of the DNC (Do Not Call) registry". The PDPC has now allowed for SMS and Fax messages sent by businesses, or whatever entity, to bypass the DNC restrictions so long as there is an "ongoing relationship" between the business and its customers. How does one define "ongoing relationship" anyway? If we adopt the PDPC's understanding of the term, it can be used to define ANY number of transactions between a business and it customers, even "one-night stands". It will be no stretch of the imagination that a business can stalk a customer simply because the PDPC has given its blessings. The PDPC says that an organisation that breach any of the data protection provisions in the PDPA may be liable for a financial penalty of an amount not exceeding $1m. But how can such violation be proved and acted upon if the exceptions and exemptions can be made post-PDPA?
I am in no way suggesting that businesses that engage in direct marketing be banned. By all means communicate with your customers in whatever way that customer chooses provided that he has explicitly and clearly given consent. Now, anything beyond that is ambiguous, and laws are not meant to be ambiguous, are they? It appears that in Singapore, when the government jumps into bed with businesses, a murky broth can surface, to the extreme discomfort of the people to whom it has given its word to care and protect.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Ms Bertha Henson, who appears to be helming the BN, is not unknown in the journalistic circles in Singapore. According to her bio that can still be found online, she has been with Singapore Press Holdings since 1986, holding various positions such as Acting Editor of the New Paper and editor in charge of journalism training programmes of English and Malay papers.. I don't personally know her, but her body of work suggests that she is no lightweight in journalism circles in Singapore.
Thus it came as a surprise that the erstwhile establishment figure is now fighting a battle with the media supremos in Singapore. For now, she appears to have given up the fight. When a hundred pound gorilla wants to block your way, you don't rush head-on. You'd only damage your brain, with nothing much else to show for it. This is the first time I have heard of this altercation, and about the Breakfast Network. So I do not know if the BN will spout nonsense, or offer a credible voice on and about Singapore. I don't even know if it will be aligned with the powers that be, or the ones on the other side of the political divide, or even be a fence sitter. But one thing is certain - it operates within the sphere of social political commentary and she has written about things that may have caused the authorities to squirm in their seats. You see, the authorities don't like to squirm, if they can help it. In any case, a voice has been silenced. The MDA insists that it is not muzzling the voice of Singaporeans. It says that so long as certain rules are complied with, you can proceed to put out commentary and write about Singapore all you want - short of defaming people and engaging in too much negativity that may cause foreigners to think that Singapore is going to the dogs.
Now if Ms Henson had just restricted her website to issues of cooking in the kitchen, she would have been able to spew some oil and add some spice and honey when discussing her cooking in the kitchen. Then we can all have a party.
See: Media bias
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Singapore is amazing. There is perhaps no other country on earth where the response to a major riot on its streets is a call for restraint and reflection on what Singaporeans could have done better to prevent such violent behavior. After all no Singaporean deliberately provoked the Indian foreigners to bring out such violent behavior. Yet some are earnestly suggesting that Singapore could have done more to integrate them into our society, to our way of life, our docility even. We cannot understand why these foreigners reacted so violently for after all, they would have been in Singapore long enough to appreciate that we don't settle grudges this way. We defer to the law and the courts but more often than not, we talk things out. Sure there are people who will resort to violence, but on this scale? We don't fight on the streets or otherwise cause trouble. Those who do know that they will be courting trouble with the authorities. This is probably why Singapore has not had a street riot in more than 40 years.
Yes, Singapore will, and has thrown the book at the perpetrators of this riotous disturbance, but at the same time, it is willing to look into this issue more deeply to discover the underlying reasons for this behaviour, which included the willful act of destroying police vehicles, an ambulance and fire truck. Were the police action too provocative? Judging from the large numbers of policemen that were injured one would have thought that the police was not tough enough. Yet that is one of the things that are being discussed, not how long a jail sentence the rioters will likely end up with, or if they will be caned. Many speculate that they will be deported. Perhaps Singaporeans prefer not to speculate for we have been told more than once that the case is before the Courts so we should not comment or speculate.
Singaporeans have a right to be angry but most of us are in a more reflective mood. Perhaps this is just as well and, true to our nature, we will talk, discuss and analyse, and then move on to the next incident. We don't really like to demonstrate on the streets, unlike a neighbouring country, where you wonder what the people do for a living besides march on the streets.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Mr Hri Kumar, erstwhile MP for the Group Representative Constituency (GRC) of Bishan-Toa Payoh insists that the Workers Party make clear its stand on the issue of Muslims wearing the tudung. He claim!s that the PAP is clear on this, that it has taken a clear stand. He accuses the WP of avoiding taking a clear position on the issue. I don't think there is anything wrong with this stance. After all, they are practising the wisdom of the ages:
"A politician is an animal who can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears on the ground" - H.L. Mencken
"Practical politics consists of ignoring facts" - Henry Brooks Adams
"A politician should have three hats. One for throwing into the ring, one for talking through, and one to pull rabbits out of if elected" - Carl Sandberg
"Politics, n. Strife of interest masquerading as a contest of principles" - Ambrose Bierce in the Devil's Dictionary.