Fake Buddhists Monks (Sunday Times 8 Jul); and
Fake Buddha Tooth (Sunday Times 15 Jul)
Last week it was fake monks begging for alms in Singapore. This week it's questionable Buddha's relic. $45m was raised to build a temple to house a tooth said to be from Buddha. Experts sy it looks like a cow's tooth. Frankly, if I know anything about buddhism, Buddha should be turning in his grave (if he had one) if he knew people were keeping pieces of him let alone worshipping it. People who donate money to house relics, even if authentic, for worship seems not to have understood the teachings of Buddha.

A tale of true humanity (ST, 14 July)
On Hainan Island, a rag-and-bone odd job labourer has been taking in and adopting baby girls abandoned by their natural parents trying to have a son to carry on the family name. All over almost 2 decades he has taken in 10 or more girls. With his meagre income, he still manages to ensure that his children, natural and adopted, get an education and have a better future. When he sent his eldest adopted daughter, who was 19 by then, off to Shenzhen to work, it was a tearful separation as she had never left home before. The father cried all the way back on the bus. When the daughter offered to send money home for the family to celebrate Chinese New Year, he told her to keep the money for her own use, as he did not raise their children in order to make money from them.

As I read this story, I was thinking that if this man applied for PR status in Singapore he would probably be denied. He had no education, and no wealth to offer Singapore. And yet, what he could offer was the immeasurably more precious human heart and the compassionate soul.

Instead, we accept the rich and "talented" who are not afraid to use their talent to further enrich themselves materially (and in so doing, enrich Singapore). While some are probably nice people, the selection criteria probably doesn't favour philanthropy or compassion.

If Singapore is already crassly materialistic, the future with more immigrants of similar ilk, does not seem likely to be any different.


Who's misbehaving?

With the headlines, "Ok. Ok. I'll behave. Don't shoot." The Sunday Times (15 Jul) probably thought it was a fun picture to show a Spl Ops Command Officer pointing his gun at at 11-yr-old.

The Officer should know better than to do that. His weapon is not a toy, and even in basic weapons handling he should have been taught
1) Treat all firearms as loaded. 2) Never point a firearm at anything you do not want destroyed or killed.

There is a third rule: never let the breaking of the 2nd rule be captured in the national press. Yes, it's NDP, and maybe the kid was willing to pose for it, and maybe the dumb photographer asked for the pose. You should still be professional enough (or at least smart enough) to say no.

Guess who's gonna get a reprimand?

About Sovereignty

Brunei and Singapore celebrated 40 years of currency interchangeability by releasing new $20 notes with a same back - scenes from Singapore and Brunei, but with different fronts - Brunei $20 with their sultan, and Singapore $20 with Yusof Ishak.

At the press conference, Brunei described the notes as signifying that the countries were two sovereign nations on one side, and the close cooperation we had on the other. One comment left on the ST online was that this currency interchangeability meant that Singapore was vulnerable to the manipulations of Brunei. For example. North Korea is believed to be counterfeiting US currency. Our arrangement with Brunei would open us to the same risks.

However, that is only a possibility and not a probability, and the comment was alarmist at best and I don't think anyone took it seriously. However, what is interesting was mention of sovereignty by the Brunei leader, and the confidence that this 40 year cooperation should continue. Actually, if either country should be worried, it should be Brunei, as they have the natural resources to back their currency, but Singapore's backing is based on years of building up the reserves. In the early years, they probably had a greater risk that Singapore would just print money, and flood Brunei with "cheap" Singapore dollars. Even now, Brunei with less than 1/10th of Singapore's population probably have more reason to feel threatened but does not.

Both countries deal with each other with mutual respect as sovereign nations. There is no question that this arrangement would threaten the sovereignty of either.

In contrast, Malaysia feels their sovereignty is threatened all the time, whether it's the water issue, the causeway/bridge issue, our land reclamation programme, or our investment (or consultation) in the Iskandar Development Region.

Indonesia also feels necessary to raise the issue of their sovereignty over the Defence Cooperation Agreement which was tied to the Extradition pact. Now they want to amend the DCA because they feel their sovereignty is being threatened.

Thailand also felt necessary to raise the "Singapore boogeyman" with their concerns over the security of their mobile phone communications because of the Singapore ownership of one of their telco. The coup general has since admitted that it was a strategy to rally support of the the Thai people.

I thought it interesting that Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, all vastly bigger countries with larger population than Singapore would worry that a small island state of 4m people could threatened their sovereignty, while Brunei, one of the smaller countries in the world (tho still larger than Singapore) with a population less than 1/10th of Singapore is not.

Of course, it's arguable whether a currency interchangeability agreement is more threatening than any of the other issues. Probably not.

M'sian PM weds again
ST 9 June

Congrats Pak Lah!















The Judgement of Paris.
ST online 9 June
Judge overrules Sheriff electronic monitoring and orders Paris back behind bars. It's a simple life.

Wild Ride in a Wheelchair
ST, 9 June 2007

And here we were wasting our time getting bus fitted with wheelchair ramps! :-)

NETS faces competition? What competition?

Nets' chief executive officer Poh Mui Hoon said that Nets has 'no choice' but to increase fees to ensure that banks will continue issuing their cards.

There are some 600,000 debit cards in use in Singapore now and as these pay better revenue, the banks prefer to issue them. If Nets does not offer the issuers better rates, it will disappear from the scene, like domestic debit schemes in Portugal and Belgium did, she added.

Does she think we are stupid or what? Banks will stop issuing NETS card? What NETS card? You mean the one we use to draw money from ATMs? So banks are going to stop issuing ATM cards? The first bank that tries that will see a run on their bank as deposits are withdrawn and accounts are closed.

NETS is owned by the banks (DBS, OCBC, & UOB) so the argument is that NETS is in competition with itself (the debit cards) so need to raise fees?

And so what if they haven't raised rates in 22 years? As someone else has pointed out, these are rates, it grows as the turnover increases.

I'm moving my money to Citibank. They have ATMs at every MRT station. That's pretty convenient.

About 2 months ago, there was a launch of a residential development in Johor with hundreds of bungalows for sale following the wake of a few optimistic announcements of developments in Johor known as the Iskandar Development Region (IDR).

I don't have that kind of money to invest, but even if I had, I was skeptical. Quite a few Singaporeans have been burnt in such land development schemes that intentionally or not became scams.

A few weeks after that promo at HDB Hub, there was another promo at Suntec, and this time a man turned up with newspaper cuttings and a testimony to warn potential investors of the risks of investing in M'sia. He was one of those who had been burnt previously. He had invested in a development project but halfway through the developer ran out of cash or just ran out. The project was stalled and remained unfinished, and uninhabitable. Then looters started stealing whatever was there.

The Singapore investors had no recourse, no help, no hope.

The new IDR has the backing of the M'sian govt and it is clear that they are committed to the project and the vision of what it promises.

But the people are not behind it. How long can they be committed? How sure can we be of the commitment? What happens if, because of Singapore's investment in the IDR, the PAS wins Johor in the next election?

The M'sian govt is making all the right noises, but the people are making all the wrong ones.

What we have here is a barking dog who's also wagging it's tail. Which end should we believe?



Technorati Tags: Singapore, Malaysia, Iskandar, Johor, Investment, Politics, Causeway

Dealing with Govt is a pain.

Bernie Ecclestone candidly said that he found dealing with the Singapore Govt, a pain. Mahathir had previously said that Singapore Govt is also inflexible.

A glimpse into the back stage negotiations was given when it was revealed that at all stages the govt kept raising operational issues and questions that had to be resolved. I think businessmen like Bernie Ecc and Ong Beng Seng were used to shaking hands on the deal in principle and sorting out the niceties and details as they arise. Their personal relationship and trust would smooth over any bumps.

However with govt personal ties only goes so far. Personality is not a good basis for business with the govt. Mahathir and Abdullah are a contrast in styles and approach and Singapore's relationship with Malaysia, is more dependent on the personality of the Malaysia leader than the shared economic interests and potential for collaboration.

Similarly, on hindisght, the security of Temasek Holdings investment in ShinCorp could also be said to be tied to the personal influence of Thaksin, rather than on indisputable legal foundations.

The fact is that govt leaders changed. Sometimes as a matter of succession, sometimes a little more forcefully, like Thaksin. Furthermore, there is a tendency to treat the govt as the safety net when things go awry. That's when the govt will see its commitment and expenses grow beyond the budget.

So it is good and prudent to spell out the details of any deals clearly. Good fences make good neighbours. Good agreements make good deals.

Blogging for Change

There's quite a bit of navel-gazing and meditation going on as bloggers asks, "What is the point?" This after all the sound and fury did nothing to change the govt's plans to proceed with the Minister's pay hike.

One suggestion is to stake out your battleground and build up your support:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/05/16/the-next-step-proactive-blogging/

But that's just tactics. The lessons just doesn't seem to catch.

Bloggers and political critics don't seem to get it.

For years, the govt did not agree to casinos. It was only when the casino option was seen as being necessary for Singapore's economic success that the govt reversed its position.

The govt had stopped motor racing, and even rejected a bid to host the F1 in Singapore. It reversed that decision when it saw how much Malaysia was benefitting from the F1.

The anti-gay laws on our law books have been there for years and the govt is still defending their anti-gay stance. But there are some evidence linking creativity to the "gay index".
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IE17Ae01.html

And Singapore sees creativity as a major ingredient for Singapore's future success, so that means we may be reversing those laws soon.

So go ahead and blog about man's inhumanity to man (or PAP's inhumanity to man), and human rights, and freedom, and justice, and human dignity, and ideals, and nobility, integrity, and sentimentality. It will make for great reading.

But if you want to get the attention of the government, you got to show them the money.