More On CPF

Singapore News
CPF reforms carefully considered, govt can deliver: PM Lee
By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 23 September 2007 1818 hrs

SINGAPORE: The latest CPF reforms were finalised after carefully calculating that the government can deliver on what it has promised, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday.

Chairing a dialogue with five other ministers for some 500 grassroots leaders, Mr Lee said any scheme devised has to be fair to everyone.

The prime minister said a British pensions expert he met recently had said there were only three ways to solve the problem of living longer and providing for old age.

The first is to work longer and enjoy a shorter period of retirement, the second option is to save more while working, and the third is to choose to have less money when one grows old.

For Singapore, the CPF reform is the right thing to do as it will benefit many, especially the low-income ones.

He said: "It's not something that is going to make a difference overnight because we are talking about something when we grow old, and you are talking about 10, 15, 20 years from now.

"This is something if we didn't do, it will not disturb us now, it will not affect the next election, nobody will blame us until we are 35 years from now, when the problem is here, then people will say what kind of government did we have 35 years ago, (they) never took care of us. I think it is our responsibility to do that now."

Mr Lee said the CPF interest rate is better than that given by the banks, and he had a tip for wives.

"All the women should tell their husbands that the government's CPF interest rate is now very high, better than the POSBank anytime so better take your money from your POSB (account) and put into my CPF account," he quipped.

The extra one percentage point given by the CPF Board is something Singaporeans will find hard to get anywhere else.

Mr Lee said: "The government is taking care of it – 100-percent risk free. The money is there, it will never disappear. People say go with GIC, Temasek; GIC makes so much money, you should give me the same like GIC. But GIC invests long-term – they buy shares, the stock market goes up, the stock market goes down.

"(In the) last few months, the stock market has gone down. I am sure GIC's portfolio would have gone down. And not just your interest is less – that means your capital gets less. I was persuaded by MOM (Ministry of Manpower) and MOF (Ministry of Finance), against my preference, that it's better for the government to take on this responsibility for the first S$60,000 because it's a big burden."

Measures to ensure that Singaporeans have a secure retirement go beyond just improving the CPF system.

PM Lee explained that the various measures taken by the government to improve the housing programmes, education system and even Workfare all contribute to achieving that objective.

On the Longevity Insurance or annuities, Mr Lee said he is prepared to consider various options.

"You put the money, you buy the annuity, they pay you, you die, (but) they will continue paying your spouse until she dies. That is something we should consider and can be an option in the scheme which will address the needs of quite a number of old folks," he said.

Mr Lee said the CPF changes are major and hopes the dialogue will help community leaders better understand what the government is doing for the country's long-term good.

- CNA/so

Note the highlighted statement.
I find it amusing that we are suppose to take out money from our POSB account to put it in the CPF account to earn the supposedly higher interest. And what's up with married female peasants telling married male peasants to put their money into the CPF accounts. I simply cannot understand the rationale behind the statement made.

Why would anyone put their money into an account that does not allow you to withdraw the money? And with the withdrawal age being push behind as and when the Govt thinks that the CPF savings of the peasants are not enough to sustain them for the rest of their life, what makes you think that you can see that sum of money again in your lifetime. We talk about the CPF savings staying in the family as it passes on to your next of kin upon your death, so when that happens, the CPF savings will be locked again and the story goes on.

The interest rate which is undergoing changes, will be pegged to the 10 year Singapore Government Bonds + 1%. If i am not wrong, i believe the Govt Bonds have triple AAA ratings and the interest rate would therefore be low. I would assume that the range would be between 1% to 4% and won't the long term interest rate be lower than the current 4%. If that happens, it would be a case of the Govt giving a raw deal to the peasants and saying, "This is what you wanted and this is what you are getting, so why are you still complaining? This shall teach you a lesson for telling us what to do." followed by " I told you so, 4% is a much better deal. Now you have gotten your just desserts. Hahaha"

With the CPF issue coming up again and again, i have started to change my perspective on it. To me, CPF monies is not cash but credit points, similar to the reward points that you receive when you use your credit card or pay your bills. To use it, you have to redeem it from the items that is available in the catalog. Due to my limited knowledge, i only know that i can use it for housing which i intend to do so.

Is religion inordinately protected to the extent that it unfair?

Every now and then, some minister of something from some government of Singapore will say something like

• "We must maintain religious/racial harmony otherwise we will have riots..................."

or something to that effect.

Which is why we have the Sedition Act that says

3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;

(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;

(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —

(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;

(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;

(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or

(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore, if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

(3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence under this Act, the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact such act had, or would, if done, have had, or such words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.

Notice that 3-1e says that "A seditious tendency is a tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore".

I suppose it would be fair to state that people with different beliefs would constitute different "classes" of the population. Therefore, this brings about the question

• "Is religion inordinately protected to the extent that it unfair?"

By unfair, i mean that the act is not applied equally to all different "classes" of the population.

Let us consider these 2 statements.

1) Religion "ABC" is (insert whatever insulting/degrading/blasphemous word)

2) The sky is blue

If statement 1 were to be written on a blog or disseminated by any other method, I am sure the person behind that statement would be hauled up to court and charged.

But statement 2 is uttered so many times each day by so many people all over Singapore. They are insulting/degrading/blaspheming a "class" of the population out there in Singapore. In fact I am one of the members of that class who believe that saying the phrase "The sky is blue" is the most heinous act one can do to members of my "class" (Opps i uttered that bad phrase unwittingly). By saying "The sky is blue" (Opps i did it again), these people "promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore." We members of the "class" that holds such strange beliefs are indeed very upset with those remarks and definately felt the "ill-will" and "hostility" behind those words.

So why aren't the police arresting those evil, riot inciting people? Is it because my "class" of the population is simply too small to waste taxpayer's money on? That's wouldn't be very fair would it? Is it because it would be contravening the freedom of speech act? Then why is statement 1 forbidden? That is not very fair either. Is it because my beliefs are unfalsifiable coupled with the total lack of evidence behind it? Nah. That's pot calling kettle black and not very fair once again. So why am I suffering from such injustice? Sob sob :(

According the the Constitution of Singapore,

12. —(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

Yikes! What a strange place i live in!

A joke: Science and Religion

Quite a funny joke i found on the net. To grasp the joke fully, a knowledge of the "Combined gas law" (Physics) is necessary. According to Wikipedia,

The combined gas law is a gas law which combines Charles's law, Boyle's
law, and Gay-Lussac's law. These laws each relate one thermodynamic
variable to another mathematically while holding everything else constant.
Charles's law states that volume and temperature are directly proportional to
each other while pressure is held constant. Boyle's law asserts that pressure
and volume are inversely proportional to each other at fixed temperature.
Finally Gay-Lussac's law introduces a direct proportionality between temperature and pressure at constant volume. The inter-dependence of these variables is
shown in the combined gas law, which states that:

“The ratio between the Pressure-volume constant and Temperature of a
system remains constant”

Here it goes........

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington
chemistry mid-term. The answer was so "profound" that the professor shared it
with colleagues, which is why we have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.

Bonus Question:Is Hell exothermic (gives of heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, (gas cools off
when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are we can expect the
number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume of Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the
temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms.Banyan during my freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you" and we take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then #2 cannot be true.Thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze.

The student received the only "A" given.

The hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance involved in Section 377A

ST Sep 22, 2007

Views divided, so gay sex law stays

By Jeremy Au Yong

THE decision on whether or not to decriminalise gay sex is a very divisive one and until there is a broader consensus on the matter, Singapore will stick to the status quo.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was explaining the Government's decision not to repeal section 377(A) of the Penal Code, even as it introduced to Parliament recently a raft of proposed changes to that law.

He was responding to a question from a Law undergraduate, who said she was concerned about the kind of image Singapore's stand on this issue left on foreigners, including the talent that it wished to draw here.

Mr Lee said in reply: 'If everybody felt like you in Singapore...we could change 377A and we would de-criminalise gay sex.

'But the fact is many people in Singapore feel passionately to the contrary to the point of view which you have argued. And you have to take cognizance of that.'

He said that the Government's view was that it should not push forward on this issue but follow along as societal views shifted.

'And as of today my judgment is the society is comfortable with our position. Leave the clause' he said.

Sharing his own views on homosexuality, he said it seemed to him that it was a trait people were born with.

He stressed, however, that that did not mean gays should set the tone here.

'My view is that gayness is something which is mostly inborn, some people are like that, some people are not. How they live their own lives is really for them to decide. It's a personal matter,' he said.

'I think the tone of the society should really be set by the heterosexuals and that's the way many Singaporeans feel.'

He also made clear that the issue was something Singapore would deal with on its own. It did not need foreign speakers coming here to 'add sugar and spice' to the debate.

He was referring to a recent decision by the Police to cancel the permit for Canadian academic Douglas Sanders to speak in Singapore on the subject.

'Within Singapore, we will have to work this out in our society, and I think that's what we will do,' he said.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



After Dr Ng Eng Hen gave an exemplary display of illogical thinking with his lame reply to Low Thia Khiang's questions on CPF, PM Lee Hsien Loong was next in the Shoot-myself-in-the-foot queue.

First of all, how was he able to conclude that the majority of Singaporeans were against repealing Section 377A? Surely not from this flawed and biased survey did by NTU? In that survey, the questions were phrased in this manner

• they were asked whether sex between two men or two women was 'plain wrong' and whether homosexuals or lesbians were 'disgusting'.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that such a survey, if used to justify Section 377A, commits the logical fallacy of equivocation. The equation "plain wrong" + "disgusting" does not equate to "a crime". "Plain wrong" is not the same kind of "wrong" as in a crime.

Digging one's nose in public would be considered disgusting to most. Why don't I see anyone arrested for that? Writing 1+1=3 in a math exam paper is "plain wrong" as well! Why aren't those who can't count sent to jail?

Another conclusion made in that survey was

• Through statistical calculations, the study concluded that 'intrinsic religiosity' - viewing religion as the primary driving force in life - was the strongest predictor of anti-gay sentiment here.

Not surprising isn't it? If laws are passed based on public consensus which in turn is based on religious views, can we truly say that Singapore is a secular country? Even Malaysia doesn't impose the religious views of its majority by barring it's Chinese citizens from eating pork!

Saying something like "'If everybody felt like you in Singapore...we could change 377A and we would de-criminalise gay sex" just highlights the hypocrisy practised by the government. I'm damn sure PM Lee went along with public opinion on the casino issue!

While i do acknowledge that a substantial proportion of Singaporeans who are against repealing Section 377A judging from the letters publish on Straits Times Forum such as these,

1) Gay teacher's outing not appropriate

2) Preserve marriage as an institution

3) Let's conserve our marriage constitution as one between man and woman

I have not seen a convincing argument backed by evidence that homosexuality is harmful to society.

All I see are arguments fraught with self-righteousness, self-imposed morality, misleading statistics that fails to acknowledge that correlation does not imply causation (ie. gays = higher rates of aids infection) and even clear cut lies.

Some of the most convincing studies have shown conclusively that homosexuality is genetic or at least congenital can be found here, in the June 2007 issue of Discover Magazine. Other informative reads include this John Hopkins Magazine article and this BBC article (The Boy who was Turned into a Girl).

As such, there is no reason to criminalise homosexuality because they cause no harm to anyone. If you think otherwise, i challenge you to prove it. Find me a peer-reviewed paper published on a reputable journal that shows that legalising homosexuality brings about harmful consequences.

What is astonishing is the amount of misinformation that is spread in the public on the nature of homosexuality. You can have people believing that AIDS is created by god to punish homosexuals, that gays are paedophiles or even that your son can become gay if he is under "bad" influences.

So why am I spending my time writing about homosexuals and defending their rights. No, I'm not a homosexual. It's just that I believe that no one should be made to suffer because of your hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance.

Vote for me peasants, and stand to get a payout of $1111 forever!

TODAY reported the following exchange between Opposition MP, Low Thia Khiang, and Minister of Manpower, Dr Ng Eng Hen, apparantly during a parliamentary debate.

MR LOW THIA KHIANG (LEFT): Does the
Government of Singapore Investment Corporation
(GIC) use money derived from CPF to invest?

DR NG ENG HEN (RIGHT): The relationship is not
so simple. Let me give an example: You put money
in a bank and you agree that you’ll get
2 per cent. The bank publishes a report and says
that it earned 8 per cent. You go to the bank and
say, you want 8 per cent. It doesn’t work.
But the Government takes over the liability of
the CPF Board and promises a risk-free rate to
members. The market test is, if anybody
else thinks he can take on that liability, please
line up.

MR LOW: Is the Government short-changing
Singaporeans by giving CPF members a
3.5-per-cent interest rate, while the GIC makes
9 per cent and pockets the balance of 5.5 per
cent? Is the motive of delaying the draw-down
age to enable the GIC to have a readily available,
cheap source of fund to invest?

DR NG: If it was that cheap, we would have a line
of suitors waiting for the money. There are none.

See Singapore Peasants, here's what you get after paying millions for a minister. This is the kind of nonsensical reply you get.

"The relationship is not so simple. Let me give an example: You put money in a bank and you agree that you’ll get 2 per cent. The bank publishes a report and saysthat it earned 8 per cent. You go to the bank and say, you want 8 per cent. It doesn’t work.But the Government takes over the liability ofthe CPF Board and promises a risk-free rate to members. The market test is, if anybody else thinks he can take on that liability, please line up."

Classic bullshit indeed. Firstly, a bank does not force you to deposit your money with it. You have the choice of not putting your money in the bank!!! Secondly, CPF is not a bank. It is a tool to help poor peasants save up sufficient funds for retirement purposes. CPF is not created to allow GICs to have access to cheap loans so that they can generate huge profits. Or is it? And just because CPF promises a risk-free rate to members doesn't mean it has the right to stash away the extra profits. Peasants are forced to put money inside CPF. If CPF loses money, it should jolly well fork out the risk-free rate to members. If it generates sulplus profits, peasants have every right to demand that the money goes back to them. As for Dr Ng's "market test", i would be delighted to be able to borrow money at 2.5% interest rate. I'm sure everyone else would too. The freaking line will stretch from JB to KL and back to SG.

I think peasants should just vote for me to be their prime minister lah. I'll hire Warren Buffett, the legendary investor, to manage Temesek's and GICs' assets. With Singapore's reserves standing at around $300 BILLION, according to opposition politician Mr Goh Meng Seng, Warren just needs to achieve an annual return of investment of about 20%. That will give us $60 billion. Then we'll share this $60 billion amongst the 4.5million people living on our tiny island. That works out to be $1111.11 a month for each person! Even Foreign Talents are included in this calculation. That's how rich we are!

And here's the best part of the deal.Hehe. I'll just ask for a salary of 500k a month ok? Value for money don't you think? Everyone gets 400 plates of Char Kway Teow a month for free instead of having to FORGO plates of Char Kway Teow!

Lefties, gays and discrimination

Born as a left hander, i was discriminated by this world right from the very start of my life. When i started picking up objects with my left hand instead of my right, i would be berated by my parents. Whenever i reached out with my left hand, i would be smacked. You see, in an ancient language called Latin, the holy Latin dictionary defines that left means sinister while right means dexterity.



Society not only frowns upon lefties and views them as unnatural and deviant. It discriminates them as well. From scissors, rifles, lecture theatre writing "pads", chain saws, pencil sharpeners and what have you, all are designed for the right handers (no pun intended). Even base ball gloves are designed for the right handers. It's like the whole world is against you!



It got even worse when i started to look for jobs. Prospective employers actually rejected my application for the job on grounds that "left handers are unable to operated machinery designed for right handers efficiently"!



So i felt this had to stop. Discrimination whether racial, sexual, age or handedness is just wrong. I formed a support group for "southpaws" like me, with the intention to campaign for equal rights. I invited a renowned professor from overseas, who was an expert on the subject of "handedness" to give a talk on this subject. I wanted to use this opportunity to clear up the common misconception that lefties are "sinister", which was the consensus of the public at that time. I wanted to create awareness on the discrimination faced by lefties like me in our daily lives.



Alas, the talk was cancelled at the last minute. The minister of state said that the cancellation of the talk was on grounds for public safety and public interest. Public interest because left handedness increases the chance of one being epileptic, schizophrenic, autistic, dyslexic, and mentally retarded. He said that if more people were to become left handed as a result of activism by my support group, this might increase number of handicapped people in society and even the number of schizophrenic murderers in society! Public safety because most of the members of the public are conservative. There will be heated exchanges between parties on both sides on this issue and some will get into fights. Blood will be spilt and lives will be lost.



Ok. Enough of this silly spoof. I may be a leftie but i'm not discriminated against till that extent. Just have a read on this report by CNA

"Foreigners will not be allowed to interfere in Singapore's domestic affairs"



It is mind boggling how Ho Peng Kee came to that conclusion despite even MM Lee indicating a willingness to losen the noose on the gay community.



By the way, here's an article on the Religious Affiliations of MPs in Singapore by Yawningbread.

Go figure.

Creationism : An Arugment from IGNORANCE

What is an argument from ignorance?

According to wikipedia, it is

"Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.

Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not proof of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case. This is not the same as arguing against something that can, by its nature, never be proven."

Basically it is something like saying "I can prove that I did not steal your money, therefore Tom must have stolen it". Why pick on Tom, and not Dick or Harry?

Why am I rambling about logical fallacies, all of a sudden? That is because THEY HAVE ARRIVED.

The Creationist Movement has arrived in Singapore. Basically they are a bunch of either dishonest or plain stupid idiots (still idiots regardless of whether they are stupid or dishonest) who claim that god created earth and life on earth as scientific fact. Yes, evolution theory in science is also evolution fact in layman's term. Do not fall prey when some idiot tells you evolution is just a "theory".

I shall not speculate on their motives for their continual push towards passing off Creationism/intelligent design as scientific fact. Instead, i would like to point out the stand of the scientific community on the fabricated controversy in evolution theory.

American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, the AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals "[T]he lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education."[1]

2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution: "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific “alternatives” to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."[2]

Read the stand of other major scientific societies here.

Read about how creationism/intelligent design is debunked here.

And here.

Scientific American cuts their nonsense down to size here.

An article by The Guardian here.

Do not for one moment think that this is a trivial matter. Take a look at their website here. Have a read on their articles that supposedly quashes evolution theory like a fly. Then you can appreciate their cunning, their power and funding.

Do your part to stop this mind virus today!

All can be happy and gay: A win-win situation!

In the June issue of Discover Magazine, it was reported that

• Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay. Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.

• William Reiner, a psychiatrist at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, explored the question of environmental influences on sexuality with a group that had been surgically shifted from boys to girls. These boys had been born with certain genital deformities; because it is easier to fashion a vagina than a penis, the boys were surgically made into girls at birth. In many cases they were raised as girls, kept in the dark about the surgery, and thought themselves female long into adulthood. Invariably, Reiner found that the faux females ended up being attracted to women. If societal nudging was what made men gay, at least one of these boys should have grown up to be attracted to men. There is no documented case of that happening.

• The second study was an examination of twins by psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University. Among identical twins, he found that if one was gay, the other had a 50 percent chance of also being gay. Among fraternal twins, who do not share the same DNA, there was only a 20 percent chance.

• At first glance, those results seem to suggest that at least some homosexuality must not be genetic. Identical twins have the same genes, right? How could one turn out gay and the other not gay as often as 50 percent of the time? There are many other traits that are not always the same in identical twins, however, like eye color and fingerprints. The interesting question is, how do any of these major differences arise between two products of the same code?

Before gays out there think that they can use this to bloster their case to repeal Section 377A, think again. Or maybe think many many many times. According to wikipedia,

• The classical period of witch-hunts in Europe falls into the Early Modern period or about 1450 to 1700, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in tens of thousands of executions.

People go hunt and burn witches for 250 years, you all only got "hunted" for a few generation in Singapore only, where got so easy can siam this? When such people go hunting, they heck care everything one. They just want to hunt you!

So when you all do things, must cleber abit. I read this book by millionaire real estate investor Robert G. Allen. He says must create win-win situation then can. No win-win equal no good.

So now you all ask me how can you all let them hunt you and yet you all still end up winning. Actually quite easy one lah, easy peasy. Just pull a stunt on them.

Tell them about this secret (also found in the same article in Discover Magazine)

• The model shows that over centuries an effect you might call the homophobe’s paradox has been at work on the human genome: The more intolerant the society, the more likely it is to maintain gay genes. If a society’s conventions keep homosexuals in the closet, then they will be more likely to conform, get married, and have children. This is especially true if gay genes are also responsible for making women more fecund. Imagine, for instance, that for every extra child that such a gay gene–carrying woman has, a gay man can have one fewer and the balance necessary for the survival of the gene is still maintained. The more children he has, thanks to what his contemporaries demand of him, the less evolutionary pressure there is for his female counterpart to have more. “As a society becomes more intolerant, there’s more pressure to have offspring,” says Gavrilets. “The real [evolutionary] cost of being homosexual isn’t too big if you’re forced to have kids.” On the other hand, the more tolerant the society, the more gay men can be free to be who they are, so the more likely they will be childless—and the more difficult it will be for any female in the family to make up for the loss.

So now your hunters will be bery bery high already, got a method to get rid of gays and yet no need to be afraid that people call them homophobic or bigots or whatever bad things lah. They will take away Section 377A and also allow you all to get married. They might even get the gahmen to have a "gay marriage bonus" to encourage more gays to get married.

Win-win situation right? Next time when you all get married, just remember to send me part of your "gay marriage bonus" can already lah.

Mr Brown revisited

Special needs school raised fees by 100% I ECHO the frustration of Madam Linda Lim in her letter, 'Ease burden of special needs kids' parents' (ST, Sept 8).

I have a three-year-old autistic son who is currently on the early intervention programme at Rainbow Centre Balestier Special School.

In June, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) took over the early intervention programme. I hoped the fees would be reduce and the therapy sessions increased under MCYS.

On the contrary, I was shocked to receive a letter in July stating that school fees would increase by 100 per cent from this month. This was due to an increase in co-funding. If we had difficulty paying the fees, we could approach a social worker.

No other institution - even private schools - operates in this manner by increasing its fees by 100 per cent.

There was a dialogue session held a few weeks later and I spoke to three other parents. None of us attended because we felt it was pointless as the decision had already been made.

We parents felt it was not a matter of whether we could afford to pay but was it worth it? Many asked: Does it mean our children will receive more therapy sessions? Does it mean the number of hours will be extended? Does it mean there will be more one-to-one?

Under the new guidelines, the ratio of therapist to children is 1 : 100, and teacher to children is 1 : 6. As such, Rainbow retrenched one therapist and rejected another's application.

Our children attend this programme from age two to four plus. It is overwhelming for the teacher to handle more than two children with special needs at this age. I can't imagine if there are six of them.

With all this, the three parents asked me to write to MCYS Minister Vivian Balakrishnan to express our concerns and frustrations.

During these three months, I have been cycling around my estate to look for childcare centre or kindergarten that is willing to accept my son's condition and have found one. It may not have the best trained teachers and programme tailored to special needs children, but I am willing to give it a try and withdraw from Rainbow.

Anne Ng Sar Moy (Mdm)
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_157099.html

I believe this issue has been brought up about a year ago by a particular blogger and former columnist called Mr Brown who, like Mdm Ann Ng Sar Moy, here, expressed his dismay in his column regarding the fee hike.

Here is an extract of what he wrote

"I also found out recently that my first-born daughter's special school fees were going up. This is because of this thing called "Means Testing", where they test your means, then if you are not poor enough, you lose some or all of the subsidy you've been getting for your special child's therapy.

I think I am looking at about a $100 increase, which is a more than a 100 per cent increase, but who's counting, right? We can afford it, but we do know many families who cannot, even those that are making more money than we are, on paper.

But don't worry. Most of you don't have this problem. Your normal kids can go to regular school for very low fees, and I am sure they will not introduce means testing for your cases."

For full article, it is here.

As a result, it became the Mr Brown affair as he was sacked for writing what he wrote in a column and was roundly condemned by the K Bhavani, Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, for pouring " sarcasm on many issues, including the recent General Household Survey, price increases in electricity tariffs and taxi fares, our IT plans, the Progress Package and means testing for special school fees.", "distort the truth. They are polemics dressed up as analysis, blaming the Government for all that he is unhappy with. He offers no alternatives or solutions. His piece is calculated to encourage cynicism and despondency, which can only make things worse, not better, for those he professes to sympathise with.", not being " a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics."

For full article, read here.

Respect the teacher!! Understand?

Teen: Teachers must show respect to students if they want it in return

I disagree with Mr Kevin Wong Zi Hao's comments in his letter to The Straits Times Forum page, 'Back teachers who act on unruly students' (Sept 3).

Being a 15-year-old student, I would like to offer another side of the story - the student's point of view.

I agree that some students are rowdy, unruly and show disrespect to their teachers.
However, I wonder if teachers have ever reflected on the root of the problem: Why are students showing disrespect?

Some of my peers show disrespect to a teacher because the teacher does not understand their needs. Some teachers even speak in a rude manner to students first.

Recently, one of my friends took nuggets to eat during a lesson, even though she knew she was breaking school rules.

After talking to her, I found out that she had no choice but to eat in class because she had lessons continuously from 10am until 3pm, and had no time for lunch.

Before the lesson started, she had rushed to the canteen to buy snacks to eat during the lesson, which fell during lunch time.

However, she was chased out of the class because of this.

I tried to negotiate with the teacher on her behalf, but to no avail.

Shouldn't the teacher have found out the reason why she brought the food in, instead of dismissing her as a rebellious teenager who simply wants to break rules?

I felt that the teacher could have shown some flexibility in this situation. After all, a teacher should be someone who cares for a student's welfare.

While it is demoralising for a teacher to deal with unruly students, it was equally demoralising to be the student in this case.

In my primary school, when the teacher returned our exam papers, we were faced with lectures that could last up to an hour. They would scold us for being lazy - any praise was hard to come by. Even a score of 80 per cent was not good enough.

Most times, we had stayed up till past midnight to finish that project or to prepare for that test.
So, I feel that students' efforts these days are rarely acknowledged.

While some teachers expect students to empathise with how they feel, we students also expect teachers to empathise with us.

To me, respect is never one-way. It goes two-way. If teachers expect respect from students, they should start by showing respect to students.

Woo Jia Qian (Miss)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's some of the comments left on the disscussion board on ST Forum by the readers. (In blue)

• "I believe this is a simple matter , if the student had shown little respect to "breaking school rules which she knows" it would have been reciprocrated with flexibility which you are asking for."

Nah. Given the fact the teacher threw the student out of the class even after Miss Woo had tired to explain to her the circumstances surrounding that incident, i doubt the student would have been allowed to remain in the class if prior permission to eat in class was sought. Otherwise the teacher was plain petty, throwing the student out just because prior permission was not sought and did not feel that a student ought not to be deprived of the chance to have lunch.

• "Wow... negotiate with the teacher. Sounds like a very harsh approach. I wonder what kind of respect are we talking here."

A respect that a student has the right to both eating lunch and attending lessons? You mean just because of a silly rule, a student can only choose between eating lunch or attending a lesson?

• "Yes, respect is two-way. But so far, in the cases of unruly students, respect has been one-way: from the teacher to the students, not from the students to the teacher."

Is eating in class because you have been deprived of lunch unruly? Perhaps asian values stipulates that eating in class in front of a teacher is indeed unruly. Then again asian values used to promote inequality of the sexes. Aren't women in Singapore an unruly lot nowadays? Or are the men in Singapore an unruly lot for failing to control their wives?

• "The students already know that the no-eating rule is in place. It is therefore the responsibility of the students to approach the teacher for a waiver of the rule before blatantly flouting it. Otherwise, it is an invitation for action against her no matter her mitigating reasons."

I guess rules must be followed no matter how draconian or silly they are. Like rules that you need permission from the police before you can investigate a minister. Have fun following such rules :)

• "There are alot of things to learn in school before you could even deserve the respect. You may think it is cool to be vocal but i felt that your letter is one-dimensional and lack a substantial argument."

So if one is not well-learn in school, one does not deserve respect?

• "when my staff told me to earn their respects, I said," sorry, my rank/position is higher than you" so please respect me and i'll hear your story/views...so that we can work this out... will someone tells their managing director to earn their respect before ihe/she starts work - (rubbish).just a lame excuse when one says earn the respect..."

I dunno what to make of this one seriously.

• "A good teacher is a teacher who has a golden heart but rules with an iron fist.Though I'm pro-democracy and libertarian, I must stress that the classroom is not a democracy. Taxpayers paid for your education (if you are in a public school), not you. Teachers must rule hard, but rule kindly in order to be respected."

I guess you just like to be slaved around by an iron fisted ruler.

• "What are the consequences if I break a traffic offence of parking to buy lunch just because I had no time to do so from 10am to 3pm? Well, what did the traffic warden do to earn my respect for me to want to pay up the fine?"

What a big fat logical fallacy. Traffic rules serve a purpose and that is to keep the roads safe. A "n0-eating-in-class-rule" serves to keep students hungry when they have no time for a proper lunch? As long as the student eats quietly and not disrupt the class, I don't see any purpose for being so uptight about such a rule.

• "My generation had teachers who misunderstood me all my life, but my peers and I just endured. The end-result: We became tougher people who take hard knocks in life after school much better.... :) "

Yeah. You should stare at an Ah Beng and get yourself beaten silly. Then you can learn to take hard knocks in life, albeit literally. Don't stop the Ah Beng from hitting you. Don't report him to the police. You will become a tougher person because of this, after the good beating.

And among all the replies posted on the discussion board, here's the champion of the lot:

Ms Woo,

As someone who has eaten more salt than you have rice so to speak, being a graduate student in a very liberal department of a very laidback university, and with all due respect, please allow me a point-by-point rebuttal to your letter.

Let me take it in reverse order:

"If teachers expect respect from students, they should start by showing respect to students."

Excuse me, but as a student, I do not expect my professors to "start by showing respect to [me]". I start by respecting them, honoring their expertise and time, and effort in teaching me, bec quite honestly, I need them more than they will ever need me. They are professionals who can undertake any kind of work in their field without necessarily having to teach me to eke out a living so to speak.

So you think it is alright that after paying your school fees, your professers have a right to refuse to teach you "to eke out a living"? Wierd!

If I were to ever take the position that others (esp those in a superior position) have to respect me first before I will honor them, then I may have been schooled, but not quite educated, for I would not have learnt what it means to be educated. An educated person quite naturally respects her peers, and more so her teachers, regardless, bec they're first and foremost people with intrinsic worth, independent of their behavior and/or skill, then professionals in their own right.

Hello? Isn't it more of Miss Woo highlighting the disrespect accorded to her classmate. I don't think Miss Woo is really demanding that teachers unconditionally give respect to their students. All she wants is that teachers not treat students with disrespect.

I believe in Singapore schools, the idea that we can and do learn from our peers has been way underestimated. If we start by respecting our peers, there is nothing stopping us from respecting our teachers.

As pointed out above.

I also agree that our reticent culture in Singapore almost puts the teacher who is openly lavish with her praise of her students' achievements as somebody who is at least a bit weird, unfortunately. This is true in the other Asian (and even Western) cultures I have experienced, to one degree or another. It is unfortunate, but why should you build your sense of well-being on what you perceive to be someone else's shortcoming? It is not worth it.

Agreed that sense of well-being should be based on the opinion of others. But it doesn't hurt the teacher to adopt a more encouraging attitude towards students.

"In my primary school, when the teacher returned our exam papers, we were faced with lectures that could last up to an hour. They would scold us for being lazy - any praise was hard to come by. Even a score of 80 per cent was not good enough. Most times, we had stayed up till past midnight to finish that project or to prepare for that test. So, I feel that students' efforts these days are rarely acknowledged. While some teachers expect students to empathise with how they feel, we students also expect teachers to empathise with us."

Ms Woo, I'm sure you aren't the only one, but why do you make it sound like you are studying for your teachers? You are doing it for yourself - if you make it, you make it for yourself; if you break it, you do so for yourself. If you make it, so many people will be proud of you! But they're only your cheerleaders, your life is still yours to lead, and own.

She is just highlighting the tendency for teachers to treat students with contempt, very relevant in the context of her letter. You are missing that point altogether.

It matters not whether you score 80 or 100 or 50 or 2 percent, the point is, did you do your best? If you did, you did it for yourself, good for you! If you didn't...well, you know how to complete that line. Those around you can say positive or negative things to you, but you yourself decide whether you want to be encouraged, discouraged or unmoved by them.

You will soon learn that in life, you are probably your best supporter - or otherwise - most of the times. I think one popular saying goes thus: "Sticks and needles may hurt me, but I shall never let words hurt me." If you have given your best shot at that time, then words won't hurt you, bec you choose not to let them. If you allow them to, then you need to re-examine your own self-esteem. This is true even when I read what you had written earlier about expecting others to respect you first before you will do them the honor.

Finally beginning to make sense.

"I tried to negotiate with the teacher on her behalf, but to no avail. Shouldn't the teacher have found out the reason why she brought the food in, instead of dismissing her as a rebellious teenager who simply wants to break rules? I felt that the teacher could have shown some flexibility in this situation. After all, a teacher should be someone who cares for a student's welfare. While it is demoralising for a teacher to deal with unruly students, it was equally demoralising to be the student in this case."

As other posters have mentioned, it is not for you to negotiate with your (friend's) teacher. On what ground? Please understand that in the classroom, the teacher is the boss. Please also understand that teachers are human beings, and human beings are prone to partiality. If your friend had first sought permission from the teacher (not merely informed her, mind you), on the basis that she respects the teacher's authority, then chances are, she would have given the teacher that bit of flexibility to exercise her discretion.

You people sure like to play the authority game. Just because the teacher has the authority to forbid a student from eating in class doesn't make it right. Nor is it logical blindly yield to authority, especially if it is the wrong thing to do. It's strange that people think that submitting to authority is more important than filling one's stomach. A person, if severely starved, might even resort to cannibalism. Talk about following some silly rule.

I could imagine the teacher giving her a bit of time to have her lunch in the canteen, if the school prohibits food from being consumed in the classroom, and she would have exercised her discretion without breaking any rule and thereby sending her students (and administrators) the wrong message.

Still blindly following the rules.

"I wonder if teachers have ever reflected on the root of the problem: Why are students showing disrespect? Some of my peers show disrespect to a teacher because the teacher does not understand their needs. Some teachers even speak in a rude manner to students first."

Many good teachers are reflective teachers, who constantly seek to improve their pedagogical and subject, as well as interpersonal, skills. You should not try to taint or withhold your respect of teachers with one broad brush over one mere incident you have cited.

Finally, I would urge you to take this experience as a lesson to ponder, and understand how to become a student who commands the respect of her teachers, and when you grow up, a member of society who commands the respect of her peers, her colleagues, and most of all, her family.

True, respect is a two-way street, but I would encourage you to (learn to) earn it first.

Still missing the point that Miss Woo was lamenting the disrespect accorded by the teacher.

I am a teacher too."

Is that an appeal to authority?

I guess the messages posted in reply to Miss Woo's letter exemplifies the typical mindset of a Singaporean.

1) RESPECT TO AUTHORITY IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

2) RULES MUST BE FOLLOWED AT ALL TIMES. NO EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED

3) IT IS ALRIGHT FOR STUDENTS TO GO WITHOUT FOOD.

Perhaps a sad reflection of the political situation in Singapore.

To protest or not to protest?

With the Anti-CAS protest to be held on the 8th of September at Centrepoint, many will wonder what will the turn out be like? A typical view would be that Singaporeans will only talk but not act and that only a tiny crowd will show up.

However, i would think that the mechanics of how many turn up at the protest works like this:

People seek to act in a manner that yields the highest benefit to cost ratio

based on available information

So what exactly does this mean? Consider the crowd as a single entity. Whether this entity takes part in the protest or not depends on

A) The benefits of taking part in the protest (eg. perceived empowerment, no need to fork out money for the CAS if protest works etc.)

B) The costs of taking part in the protest (eg. time spent attending the protest, potential to be arrested by police etc.)

A and B is then aggregated and if the benefits outweighs the cost, then the crowd will take part in the protest. If the costs outweighs the benefits, then obviously the crowd will not take part in the protest.

In addition to aggregating the benefits and costs, the crowd has to assign a weightage, value, or significance to each individual cost and benefit. And how much value it assigns to each cost or benefit would depend on the information it has.

For example if it is known that thousands upon thousands of people were interest in joining the protest, perhaps because they somehow were able to communicate effectively with one another and got an accurate idea of the scale of the turn out, leading to the number of protesters outnumbering the riot police by say 50 to 1. This means that effectively, the riot police cannot arrest all of them and send them to jail. With this piece of information, a great chunk from the "cost" part of the equation will be negated.

On the contrary if say the crowd got a feel that the turn out would be poor, and that each individual has a high chance of getting arrested, the "cost" part of the equation is greatly amplified.

And this is why information is so important. You control the information, you control the crowd.

You want to stop the crowd from protesting, you block out news coverage on the planned event. Generate a feel that the turn out will be poor. Generate a feel that the police will be on the ball. Amplify the cost of protesting in the minds of the crowd and diminish the benefits in the minds of the crowd. As they say, knowledge is power.

Compulsory Annuities and sharing wives/husbands

Doctor: I've got your ECG results.

Patient: So how's the condition of my heart Dr?

Doctor: I see that you are suffering from cardiac arrhythmia. It is a condition which your heart has an abnormal rhythm.

Patient: Oh i see Dr. You should prescribe me some Verapamil, a calcium channel blocker. I'm a pharmacologist you see. I understand that Verapamil is one of the best drugs out there for cardiac arrhythmias...........

Doctor: Yes yes. But first i would need to run further tests to............

Pharmacologist: I did my PhD on calcium channel blockers. I have a better knowledge of Verapamil's efficacy than you. Verapamil is indeed the drug of choice for my condition. I completely understand the mechanism of that drug action and i don't see why you are holding off prescribing that drug to me.

Doctor: You see I need to check if there is any underlying cause for your condition that can be corrected before..............

Pharmacologist: Dr, you are still unable to understand my point of view. There is no doubt that Verapamil will greatly benefit my cardiac arrhythmia. I guess since you do not have a comparable knowledge of Verapamil as I do, I see no point in discussing this further with you.

Doctor: There could be a primary cause for your cardiac arrhythmia, such as excessive potassium levels in your blood. I need to run other tests to rule out any potential underlying cause first. It is better that i treat the patient and not just the symptoms.

Pharmacologist : I simply don't understand why you are unable to see the benefits of Verapamil!!!! Goodbye Dr.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When seeking a solution to a problem, it is always better to solve the root of the problem, not just the manifestations of the problem.

Similarly when it comes to problems such as retirement for Singaporeans or rather the inability of Singaporeans to retire due to insufficient retirement funds, the origin of the problem must first be identified. Despite saving a very significant portion of one's salary in the CPF for decades, it is mind boggling that one is still unable to retire comfortably. Especially if you consider that 4 decades of compounding 34.5% of your salary does not yield you sufficient retirement funds.

So while the Compulsory Annuities Scheme ensures that all will have at least a paltry sum of money should they live too long for their own good, is it masking a greater problem? Has it got to do with the labour situation in Singapore? Or even the political situation in Singapore?

How about other problems that it creates, such as stripping the freedom of choice from Singaporeans? If it is alright to have "Longevity risk" pooling, is it alright to have compulsory house pooling if Singaporeans are unable to afford housing? How about food pooling if we are too poor to afford food? Swimming pool pooling maybe? Maybe if the birth rate of Singapore continues to be low, we should have husband pooling or wife pooling. It's for the greater good after all.

The selection pressures exerted by the education system of Singapore

Each year, when children of 7 years of age enroll for primary school, they start playing this game. A game rather like survival of a species, in which natural selection shapes the traits of this species, ensuring that only those most suited to that particular environment survive.

A key feature of evolution is a replicating mechanism, the possibility of random mutation and the all important selection. To illustrate this point, suppose there lived a population of organism which were all blind, all without eyes. A chance mutation event enabled one of the members of this population to produce photosensitive cells on the superficial surface. These cells enable that member of the population to have a higher chance of survival as it is about to differentiate light from dark, enabling it to avoid certain dangers of life associated with a sudden change between light and dark, for example a predator looming in front of it. This trait will be passed on to its offspring and its offspring would possess this trait as well and thus propagating this gene for photosensitive cells. Perhaps if this form of primitive vision proves to be sufficiently important, all other members without this trait will not succeed in their efforts towards survival or maybe even edged out by those that possess sight, thus leaving only the sighted ones in that population.

This is basically how selection works even though i suppose i did not explain it really well.

Anyway what has this evolution mumbojumbo got to do with the education system of Singapore. It may not be apparent enough but they certainly have plenty of similarities.

To be more precise, it is the method of teaching that is similar to a life-form. A method of teaching can be replicated, in other words copied. A teacher easily copy a method of teaching from his/her colleague. Similarly, a method of teaching can be mutated, or modified. Whether it is done deliberately in a certain manner or otherwise is another matter. And finally the selection of the teaching method, which is feedback in the form of the student's results. Poor results will most likely lead to the death of a teaching method.

So how has the teaching methods in Singapore evolved to be over time?

As of my time in the education system during the 1990s, i would say the most effective exam acing formula would be route learning. Pile on the ten-year-series and the never ending homework assignments. I figured that if i stayed away from school, skipped all lectures and spend my time doing ten-year-series instead, it would serve me pretty well.

In such a system, the most useful strengths a student can have would be

1) A good memory (especially short-term memory)

2) Hardworking

Creativity certainly doesn't rank highly in such an environment. Or Critical thinking. After all, one only needs to regurgitate the answers found in the ten-year-series and might even get an A. You don't even need to understand what you are writing on the exam paper!!!! Newton's second law? What does it mean? All i need to know is F=ma.

Now that we have a system that solely rewards those with a good memory and the hardworking, leaving traits such as creativity and critical thinking out in the cold. What effect does it have on the Singapore population as a whole.

I can't say for sure, but i see a very distinct and obvious difference between the mindsets/thought patterns/behaviour of Singaporeans and people from other countries. I can't really put my finger on it but if you have lived overseas for a period of time, you would probably know what I'm talking about. Is that why Singaporeans are characterized as

KIASI

KIASU

KIABO

KIABOH

KIACHENGHU?

Why doing the "right" thing may benefit you

Consider this situation:

Suppose you witnessed an group of gangsters bashing up a hapless victim and robbing him on the streets. Would you step up to help the victim?

Let's consider the costs and benefits involved.

The obvious danger when stepping foward to help the victim is that YOU might find yourself being the next victim. The gangsters might simply turn on you and teach you a lesson for being a busybody.

So playing hero in such a scenario is very risky indeed. So why would anyone compromise their safety by going against the gangsters?

The answer is not obvious to most. It is hard to see how putting your safety at risk to help a total stranger would reap any comparable reward.

However, just to illustrate a point, suppose everyone refuses to step forward to help, refusing even to call the police. This fosters an environment that is very beneficial for the gangsters/criminals. They will learn in time that it really pays to rob/steal/rape/murder. There will be no resistance against their criminal activities. Crime will soon be rampant as criminals learn that the cost benefit ratio favours those that rob, plunder and steal. Perhaps even the normally law abidding citizen may figure that it pays to join in the looting.

So who loses out in such a situation? YOU of course, silly! You would be far more likely to be a victim of crime in such an environment. Stepping forward to help a stranger is a form of cooperation between humans in a society. That's how this such seemingly altruistic behaviour evolved in humans.

Therefore the next time you see any bullying, plundering or raping going on (which is suppose occurs in Singapore on a daily basis), think twice before turning a blind eye. You could very well be shooting yourself in the foot.

A conversation with a politically apathetic Singaporean

Having a conversation with a politically apathetic Singaporean can get very frustrating. I have been trying to show a friend the reasons why i disagree with the CAS and what i get in response is that i am stupid and what's the reason for disagreeing with everything when you know there is nothing you can do when the government has made its decision and it is so "bo liao" to oppose when you can spend your time doing something that has more utility. If you are not happy with it, get out, emigrate to another country where you can oppose the government. I would like to highlight that "i am stupid" is not me, and the name is wrong, it is "i must be stupid" who is my friend here.

I would like to clarify that the reason for opposition is for discussion on topics that affects the life of everyone. If everyone is to just nod along with everything that comes along, there will be no check and balance and the ones on top can decide to do whatever they want to do.

It is not stupid to do some thinking of how a policy works and this time spent are not wasted. Actually, i find that it does the opposite. It encourages one to think more and i would say that it helps to develop your skills in critical thinking and opens up your mind.

I have to agree that there is nothing much you can do when the government has decided on its policy but should things be done this way? Wouldn't it be better if there are avenues for discussion and these are taken into consideration before making a decision?

To the point of "If you are so unhappy, why not you emigrate?", i would like to quote from our beloved Mr "TAR" Wang, "Every now and then, when I criticise some policy or new development in Singapore, I get some un-intelligent reader commenting, "Oh, if you are so unhappy with Singapore, why don't you emigrate then." How inane. I'm quite happy here, thank you very much. With a little good luck here and there, I've figured out ways to live my life it roughly along the lines of what I'd like it to be." And i find it high unintelligent of a comment to say that i have to emigrate to another place just to fight the government. The mere thought of it is laughable as that would mean that people are opposing for the sake of opposing. Their hobby is to oppose whatever the government comes out with. So if you cannot oppose this government, you emigrate and oppose the government there.

Sigh.

How to run a company

1) Brainwash your workers by feeding them news that gives them a favourable opinion of you.

2) Imprison your workers in the confines of the workplace so that they have no other alternative but to work in your company

3) For the lowly workers, pay them an amount that will not enable them to live comfortably but enough to feed them lest they rebel.

4) For the better workers, pay them an obscene amount to make them so comfortable that they will never want to rebel.

5) Provide them with a 99 year lease housing at such a high price that most will have to work 30 years to repay the loan. This is to enslave them financially. Keep them poor to ensure they work hard.

6) Make them work till the day they drop dead. Or alternatively ship the elderly who can no longer work to nearby places with cheap land.

7) Never ever pay for their retirement. Bad for profits. Call it a "clutch mentality" and tell them asians should never be lazy.

8) Borrow money from your workers (make it compulsory) at discounted rates and invest the money for better returns (of course you're gonna keep all the profits for yourself).

9) Don't ever return the money to your workers. Make an excuse for goodness sake.

10) Even if you are mismanaging the company, never let the shareholders have a chance to vote you out. Destroy any alternative candidates.

11) Human resource department screws up? Just import cheap labour from overseas.

12) Your workers not reproducing enough replacements for themselves? Just import cheap labour from overseas.

13) Your workers are not happy about the lower wages because of the influx of foreign workers? Find an excuse..... call it globalization or something.

14) Company health care policy for the workers? Make them pay for it. (Profits remember?)

15) Company retirement policy for the workers? Make them pay for it as well. (Profits remember?)

16) Management health care and retirement policy? All at the expense of the company :)

17) Unruly workers inciting others to go against the management? Send them to the disciplinary department for punishment. Set an example if you must.

18) Never ever let the workers communicate in a massive scale in case they are trying to do point number 17.

19) Workers assaulting members of the management? Get the disciplinary department to implement harsher penalties for that.

20) Workers trying to investigate the management to seek evidence of mismanagement? Make them seek permission from the disciplinary department first.

21) Tell your workers that it's risky for the company opps i mean risky for them to have no money for retirement if workers live beyond 85 (Longevity risk). Make them purchase an annuities scheme.

22) Tax your workers for purchases in the company canteen and grocery shop. Tell them the tax collected is for the purpose of helping them.

23) Make the males serve 2 years as company security guards. Save on security costs.

24) Other workers making money in the property market? Join in the party man! Make them share their profits with you. (Developmental charges and hotel levies)

Any other ideas on generating more profits for the company? Feel welcome to contribute. I might even pay you a million dollar salary if you are good. If you are a scholar, we might even pay you double. Just kidding hehe. Our company does not practise favouritism. We are honest ok?