WP Chen Show Mao Bruised and Battered, Not in Kansas Anymore

Mr Mao Mr Chen, You're Not in Kansas Anymore!

WP Chen Show Mao was the star catch in last year's GE rallies, almost like Sylvia Lim was the star in the 2006 GE. He swooped in from somewhere, rapidly built up a cult personality around himself with his astounding credentials that would fit jolly well among the candidates in white, except that his colours were blue. Chen Show Mao could do no wrong it seemed. His GE rally speeches were above-average but neither awesome nor awful, not that witty as Low Thia Khiang, not that scarily rousing like facist-seeming Pritam Singh.

Recently, his speeches and his credibility have suffered an even greater dip as he was accused of plagiarism. Sharp guys who probably agreed with the former Davis Polk & Wardwell  corporate raider, pointed out that Chen Show Mao's politicised ideas on government spending and economics were borrowed or stolen from this other guy, Donald Low, point by point, without attribution and credit given to the source. Those against the WP manned the guns and started firing at Mr Chen. WP defenders also jumped into their trenches and shelled back. Frankly, no big crap that Mr Chen copy/paste but some attribution was necessary since he is a big blue target for WP's critics. He should be street smart enough to avoid such ambushes. Maybe he is just not street smart as Low Thia Khiang, that's why.

The hypocrisy of those blindly propping Chen Show Mao up is laughable and predictable. Sometimes you wonder where the anti-PAP or anti-WP idiots come from. So much for our education system. If it was Vikram Nair that borrowed or stole ideas from Donald Low, you bet these same fellows defending the WP MP would hammer Nair senseless. Donald Low might do an 180 turn and instead of saying it is ok now, might insinuate ("insinuate" because if say outright he would get sued by PAP until no pants even) intellectual property piracy, the anti-PAP rabble would accuse the Sembawang PAP MP of zero originality at best and a thief at worst. Such is life!

It is not one year since the 2011 GE and already the internet rabble is excited that they can take shots at WP as well as the PAP. Mon-Tue-Wed-Thu, scream at PAP. Fri-Sat, shout at WP. Sun-rabble sabbath and rest day.

Politics is becoming more fascinating as people are beginning to realise that all parties in parliament are fair game. The fun and responsibilities of a cynical populace. The burden of the enlightened electorate! The PAP would get most of the slime since they control most of the seats in parliament, but some shit is also proportionately reserved just for WP as they are not the small underdogs that they used to be anymore. The bigger they grow, the more shit they would get. Justly so.

Update
Pritam Singh also accused of plagiarism since his parliament speech was based on a blogger's article and there was no attribution. Facepalm.

Don't Make Fun of Religion, Lots of Hypersensitive Zealots

Be cool bros!

Sure, there are assholes who are rude and bigoted, and have white bedsheets hood and gown in their drawers. However, there are also thin-skinned monotheists who get all worked up. There is something about religion, especially monotheistic ones, being uptight that their religion being insulted. I'm not talking about the usual bearded AK-47 totting Taliban or Afghan running amok after stacks of the Quran were burnt by the US unbelievers-invaders in Afghanistan, I'm talking about uptight local Christians. Ask former NMP Siew Kum Hong and and he has a rough idea of being hounded by Christians when he recently uploaded something in his Facebook that got some hypersensitive Christians all constipated. He had to apologise. In the latest thin-skinned incident, the sexist FHM had to pull off its magazines from the shelves as Christians were supposedly mocked in an article. The FHM editor also had to apologise.

What exactly was the insult I really don't know, but I sure want to know now in both the Siew Kum Hong and FHM cases. Controversy fires up publicity. Maybe it was a cartoon of Jesus or Moses, or a film re-review of The Last Temptation of Christ. What it did was give FHM publicity and that article an underground status. People who have a relevant copy might scan the article and upload it in the Internet soon. Just wait for it to appear in a Facebook Wall or in your email soon for you to laugh, get upset or just feel indifferent.

The Christians if they wanted to be taken seriously have to get lawyered up and sue FHM. Or if they want to get really taken seriously, have to be more vocal like how Muslims were upset about Prophet Mohammad cartoons. I seriously don't think they should do that though.

FHM pulled off shelves, editor apologises

04:46 AM Mar 03, 2012SINGAPORE - The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) has sharply criticised two articles published in the latest edition of FHM Singapore, describing them as "highly objectionable and deplorable". The criticism prompted an immediate apology from the senior editor of the men's magazine and the removal of the publication from newsstands islandwide.

In a statement yesterday, the council, which represents more than 150 churches across denominations, said the articles "make fun of the Lord Jesus Christ". The statement, signed by NCCS president Bishop Dr Robert Solomon and its three vice-presidents, added: "These articles appear during the holy season of Lent when Christians remember the sufferings and sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and they cause serious offence and hurt the sensitivities of the Christian community."

The NCCS also urged the authorities to "look into the matter and ensure the material in question is removed", adding that "such offensive articles threaten the religious harmony that we work so hard to build and maintain".

Noting that it has become "fashionable" to depict religions in the media in ways that are offensive to religious communities, the council urged that "society must be on guard against such trends". FHM Singapore is a title produced by MediaCorp Publishing. The articles in question were entitled "Which of These Celebs Might Secretly be Jesus?" and "Jesus 2.0: What can we expect?".

When contacted, FHM Singapore senior editor David Fuhrmann-Lim said: "We would like to apologise for any offence caused ... We are always sensitive to people's religions and beliefs, and while the article was written with a tongue-in-cheek humour, we do realise now it was not done in the best taste or judgment. We will certainly be more mindful of such sensitive issues in the future."

"Furthermore, we will immediately remove all copies on sale in the newsstands; this process should be completed in the next two days," he added.

When contacted, a spokesperson for the industry regulator Media Development Authority said: "We are investigating this complaint for a possible breach of our content guidelines for publications."

Want Better Healthcare? Higher Tax!

That is what Tharman said in parliament during the budget debate. If people want better healthcare, medicine and trained medical staff don't fall from the sky, and there would be higher tax!

Wow such a scary ultimatum man. Did it occur to the dear minister that we don't mind paying more tax if there is better healthcare? Wait! Mr IRAS, don't come knocking at my door! I insert caveat now. Although, depends on how much tax more also as I don't want to pay a health tax that is twice half my income tax, just to subsidise for another Mr fat diabetic always-eat-sleep-never-exercise citizen's healthcare bills.

With the population getting older and apprehension of inflation and rising health costs, the Budget promised  medifund and medisave top-ups. Clap. There is more subsidies for patients in community hospitals of 20-50%. Clap clap.They would push out more hospital beds - 1,900 in the general (acute) hospitals and ,1800 beds in the community hospitals. Clap clap clap. To give a rough idea of the scale of the beds being pushed into the wards, Singapore General Hospital has about 1,500 beds. The new Khoo Teck Puat hospital has about 550 beds in comparison. So not a small number of beds, assuming that there is enough healthcare professionals like doctors, nurses, technicians to service the beds. Hand about to clap but stop. More beds so what, if there is not enough attentive doctors and pretty nurses. Nursing isn't something glam for locals as a career and Pinoys and PRC workers would continue to be around in the wards.

However, why didn't the Budget assure for me in healthcare despite the enhanced instruments? The simple fact was that Tharman promised healthcare spending may reach 3.5% of GDP in 2030. 2030, not 2020, not 2015. Also, I despair to think that the foreigners here might stress our healthcare infrastructure just like they stressed housing and transport. Yet, there was no populist gesture of a citizens-first healthcare. Maybe like the more subsidised B and C wards only for citizens? The PAP government just does not seem serious or sincere enough about assuring us in our growing healthcare worry.

Temasek as the Citizenship Transit Point

 To the naturalised citizens who tore up their pink IC in the end, good luck, good bye!

I don't bother much about locals leaving. They must have their own reasons, valid or not is subjective. Maybe because their banana kids cannot cope with Chinese, they find life is too stressful in Singapore and they want a slower pace, they are retiring overseas and want to enjoy quality of life, they are SPG and married foreigners and moved out, these are common stories we hear of why people leave Singapore. They would miss their heart-stopping add-hum-add-egg char kway teow, but they won;t miss it that much to stay here. I wish them the best in their greener pastures yonder, especially the guys as presumably they did their NS obligations.

My shitty comments on citizens leaving are reserved for the naturalised citizens. Supposedly about 300 a year according to the stats bugger off. About 300 of the average 1,200 citizens every year. About 25% of the citizens who tear up their pink IC every year in recent years.

Now is that an anger-festering fact or what. These foreigners come here, get citizenship, sumpah what "we the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves...". Then they have the privilege to buy HDB flats or landed property, make a killing in the recent bullish property market and then pack up and go. They managed to make money out of property, and the guys don't even have to do NS. Very galling man the idea. I very sour grapes, so what.

Furthermore, it is not a small percentage of freeloaders. It is about 25% of the people who threw away their pink IC. What I want to know is whether there is a pattern in this citizenship freeloading where Singapore is just a transit point or a stepping stone to citizenship in another country. What nationality are these people who come here, pledge allegiance to the red, white, stars and crescent, and then cash out their citizenship? PRC, India. Malaysia?

SINGAPORE - An average of 1,200 Singaporeans renounced their citizenship every year between 2007 and 2011.

Of these, 300 were naturalised citizens.

But the renunciation rates for both naturalised citizens and Singapore born citizens were low at 0.1 per cent or less, said Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, as he gave this update in Parliament today.

Mr Teo also explained why some give up their citizenship and assured members that every application for citizenship was carefully evaluated.

"Every application for permanent residence or Singapore citizenship is evaluated holistically on a range of criteria, including economic contributions, qualifications, age, family profile, and length of stay in Singapore," he said. "The reasons for emigration vary. Some emigrants leave for family reasons, because of marriage or to reunite the family members overseas, while others do so for a different living environment.

"All Singapore citizens and permanent residents who own HDB flats will have to sell their properties if they renounce their citizenship or cease to be permanent residents. There are no exceptions to this rule."

Hawker Centre Panel Recommendations Akan Datang

The Panel, headed by towkay neo Elim Chew, went about to ask for feedback. But you know the same song, we Singaporeans complain that nobody listens to us but yet we don't give feedback to such panels, and then later complain that there was no consultation. BTW, I also didn't know there was such a panel as I don't hang out at Reach at all.

The panel talked about green hawker centres but not too sure if customers want to pay more for biodegradable plates, graciousness in hawker centres but I think hawker centres bring out the worst in many people like the chope seats with tissue packet mentality, about affordable nice food in hawker centres but we all know about Singaporeans' ai pee ai chee ai tua liap nee everything also want, but don't want to pay.

What I hope to hear is hawker centres making a big come back to the heartlands and beyond. Right now, there are 112 hawker centres in Singapore, managed by JTC, HDB and MEWR. Only 112, not 1,112. If they are indeed part of our culture and heritage, if they are needed to provide cheap food for the masses, and if they can give honest employment to those who want to strike out on their own, then one major recommendation for the renaissance of hawker centres is that more should be built. Furthermore to encourage more to enter the hawker profession, loosening the criteria for subsidised stalls (rental of max $320 / month) and not restricting it to the original relocated street hawkers of the 1970s, and phasing out the non-subsidised stalls and the tender scheme for hawkers are just as important. Let's wait for the panel's detailed recommendations.

Panel presents initial ideas for new hawker centres in Singapore

The way new hawker centre food stalls are run, priced and assigned could face major changes if recommendations put forward by a public consultation panel are adopted.

These changes, however, are aimed at ensuring that hawker centres continue to offer affordable food for Singaporeans.

Proposed changes unveiled by the 18-member panel at a press conference on Monday include lower than market-value rents, no subletting of stalls and joint-tenancies for stalls.

The preliminary proposal also recommends having a non-profit social enterprise operating the hawker centre with the Government providing guidance and financial support.