Thursday, June 29, 2006
He begins his tirade with this...
How apt that Vieira silences the exciting Spaniards and their distasteful coach
"I don't care much for Luis Aragones. There is an ugliness about the veteran coach, the acrid stench of a racist follows him everywhere he goes, after he disgracefully called Thierry Henry a "black shit".
Imagine the delight when Spain were knocked out of the World Cup, of all teams by Henry's France".
This event happened more than a year ago at least. It made the headlines all over for a while and Aragones was condemned from all quarters. He later apologized to Henry and the chapter closed. So now for Leonard Thomas to harp on this again shows that it bothers him more than the subject of the racist remark. I mean why make a headline and raise this issue again when nothing in the pre-match buildup, on or off-field incidents or anything during the entire World Cup so farjustifies this reporting slant? Come on let's move on, man! Leonard Thomas btw is a "dark complexioned" ABNN.
Further down he wrote...
"I imagine there will be demons in the mind of 67-year-old Aragones for some time. He will wonder how the team could not capitalise on Villa's penalty to sink the French once and for all.
He will curse the superb work of Patrick Vieira, who split open the Spanish defence for Franck Ribery's equaliser."
Wah this guy got imagination man! He is now putting words in the Spanish's mouth, saying Aragones will curse Viera. What kind of writing is this? Why is Leonard Thomas so spiteful and full of hatred?? Further on...
"As coach, Aragones is probably top quality. He had the courage to drop golden boy Raul and was unafraid to blood youngsters. But, hopefully, this defeat will end his tenure in charge of Spain.
The country breathes football, there are many other top coaches who would jump at the chance of guiding this team. Especially when they are capable of hitting such stirring heights. Such beauty should not be stained by a racist.
There was a moment in the match on Tuesday that I will never forget. After a tackle involving Vieira, Aragones was so incensed he got off the bench to scream his protestations. Staring at the Spanish coach, wearing a dismissive look, Vieira put finger to lips to send his message across. It riled up the combative Spaniard even more, but he was so powerless."
Again someone who didn't watch the match and just reading his article would be fooled into believing his description of events and what happened. This is damn biased and unprofessional. I mean is there a point to all that?? Is it football writing or just some petty but vicious personal attack? What is Leonard Thomas trying to incite? Does he have a hidden agenda?? Wah lao eh, buay tahan man! Luckily he ended off soon after that, but with this...
"On Tuesday night, Frenchman Vieira, black of Senegalese stock, performed the matchwinner's role magnificently. And it was just as satisfying."
KNNBCCB! Confirm liao lor! Chee bye kia Thomas obviously have an inferiority complex or something. No he is not racist, but obviously he is suffering from ultra-sensitive-racist complex whatever you call that. He wrote a lousy article that is really a badly disguised personal vendetta against Aragones... I mean he probably has never met Aragones face to face or talked to him yet he is so set and agry against Aragones. Really a lousy and unprofessional reporter!!
I notice quite a number of "dark-complexioned" people seems to carry this burden with them. Dunno why. I mean if you are brown you are brown, you are yellow you are yellow, white, pink, black whatever. You cannot deny that humans can differentiate colours and yes the first thing the eyes pick up are the colours and shapes before anything else. Everyone knows this, no need to say one. Wonder why someone like Leonard Thomas just cannot seem to move on?? I mean give it a rest dude. If want to rant, then start a blog like chow recruit here, otherwise dun waste ink and let the trees die for nothing.
Sometimes i think the real racists out there are the super sensitive ones, becoz they are so sensitive to the extent that they become intolerant and invade the space of others (e.g. that person who complain of dogs taking taxis). Fuck man! Might as well ban words like black, brown and so on! Duh.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Commando dies during training
A Commando regular officer died yesterday after encountering difficulties while undergoing training at Hendon Camp swimming pool.
Lieutenant Lionel Lin Shi Guan, 24, was swimming towards the edge of the pool when he went below the surface of the water.
The instructor, who was next to him in the water, lifted him up and took him to the edge of the pool where immediate medical attention was rendered.
But LTA Lin began vomiting and passed out. He was then rushed to the Hendon Medical Centre at 4.05pm where two doctors attempted to resuscitate him. LTA Lin was evacuated to Changi General Hospital at 4.10pm and arrived at 4.25pm. He was pronounced dead at 4.59pm.
Mindef will also be conducting an inquiry to ascertain the circumstances and the cause of death.
Mindef and the Singapore Armed Forces extend their condolences to the family of the late LTA Lin, and will be assisting the family in their time of grief.
I like the way MINDEF describes what is most likely a drowning. "Encountering difficulties while training..." sounds like no one except the bugger himself's fault. Some questions that must be asked of MINDEF: What kind of training is it? Why did he go under the water? Were there no signs of trouble? Vomiting and passing out meant he obviously took in water. What were the instructors and Conducting and Safety Officers doing all this while? What time did the incident occur and how long did they take to get him proper medical attention? Were the medical attention adequate and up to standard??
Oh well just another day in this sunny paradise. So smile some more for little Lee! Hahaha
Monday, June 19, 2006
By Linda Lim, For The Straits Times
Jun 19, 2006
SINGAPORE'S economic development has never relied on its being a nation. First a colonial port where immigrant merchants and labour served the needs of the British empire, after independence in 1965 its economic policy still located the city-state within the regional trade and global production networks of foreign corporations.
Unlike Asia's other export-oriented 'developmental states' - Japan, South Korea and Taiwan - Singapore did not actively nurture or encourage a local capitalist class. Foreign and state enterprises were favoured, so 'national champion' outfits such as Toyota, Samsung and Acer never developed.
Instead, Singapore has always been a 'global city' - a place where parts and people are imported to produce goods and services that are exported to foreign consumers. To be sure, given its size constraints, the strategy of being a niche player in multinationals' global value chains is quite defensible, even if other small countries - such as Switzerland, Denmark, Finland and New Zealand - have managed to grow locally owned global companies.
However, in Singapore, it is not market actors but the state that targets particular niches in global value chains, filling them overwhelmingly with subsidiaries of foreign enterprises. State policy has shaped local resources - labour, land, infrastructure, housing, fiscal regimes and cultural amenities - to provide a competitive place for particular foreign economic entities to locate.
The standard justification for state intervention in an economy is 'market failure' - where resources are not efficiently allocated because of the divergence of private and social costs and benefits.
In health, education and infrastructure, for example, society's net gain from an investment is greater than the private return to the individual, resulting in under-investment if left to market forces.
Market failure is common in developing countries but, as they develop, so do markets. State intervention then becomes less necessary. Yet the Singapore state has kept its developmental role and control of the economy way past the stage at which a market-believer would expect it to 'wither away'.
IT DOES not merely enhance productivity through social investments, but also determines the sectoral allocation of resources by shaping relative resource endowments and moulding competitive advantage in certain industries. Thus state policy has targeted the development of specific 'clusters' in which Singapore does not have the requisite local resources, markets or leading companies. In the capital- and talent-intensive field of the life sciences, foreign talent is imported (sometimes by paying above-world-market rates), and capital subsidies provided to foreign firms, to produce medical breakthroughs for global consumers. This might make Singapore a profitable place for parts of the life sciences' global value chain to locate. But it is not clear where Singapore the nation benefits, since the jobs, profits and goods are produced overwhelmingly by and for foreigners. In this case, the Singapore state may be seen as acting as a steward of the interests of non-Singaporeans.
Foreign and local economic interests may be complementary. But if the state did not attract, steer and push resources in the direction of the life sciences, resources would be allocated to other sectors by local entrepreneurs. In a market economy, every investment choice, private or public, has an opportunity cost against which its economic benefit must be evaluated.
The Singapore state's penchant for 'picking winners' reflects its continued adherence to the last generation's successful industrial policy, and its distrust of markets and local private entrepreneurs as drivers of the economy, and possibly also as alternative leaders of a more pluralistic political and social system.
THE official encouragement of entrepreneurship is based on a contradiction, since individual initiative and risk-taking in response to market forces are the essence of private entrepreneurship, not government exhortations, training and incentives. Both entrepreneurship and creativity spring from social conditions and an economic policy environment very different from the top-down control model found in Singapore. The economic primacy of place over nation is reflected in the government's recent decision to allow international gaming companies to establish casinos in Singapore. Responding to local objections based on 'values' as well as economic concerns, the government argued that casinos would not undermine Singapore society because Singaporeans would not be involved in the business as consumers but only as workers - though we may expect casino employees to be disproportionately foreign.
Singapore, in short, is to be a place where foreign profits are earned from foreign customers served disproportionately by foreign workers, and it is only the disentanglement of place from nation that makes the casino enterprise justifiable, given national objections. Such disentanglement may be considered inevitable given contemporary globalisation trends, the diminution of nationalism globally and Singapore's small size.
A state-directed foreign-dependent place-based economic development strategy could also yield higher income and non-monetary returns to nationals than market-determined local-entrepreneur-led nation-based activities.
But there are also economic risks and potential losses associated with defining Singapore merely as a place in competition with other places around the world. It exposes us to US columnist Tom Friedman's 'flat world' - ultimately a cost-based contest we cannot win - rather than building the particular competencies and strategies based on difference rather than sameness that strategy professors believe allow premium incomes to be earned by taking advantage of the world's roundness, rather than surrendering to its flatness.
For Singapore, this would mean 'market positioning' as a regional rather than a global city, exploiting location-specific advantages and limited regional competition, versus replicating the amenities of multiplying other 'global cities' such as London, New York or Shanghai.
Place-based economic development also has implications for Singapore as a nation. Most of the foreign workers who constitute a large part of Singapore's workforce are lower-skilled so will not be given the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. For them, Singapore is merely a place, not a nation.
The situation at the upper, more-educated, skilled and higher-income levels of the labour force is of more interest to the nation since it tends to be elites who lead nations and define nationhood.
THE government's 'foreign talent' policy resonates with our own immigrant history and, by shifting our comparative advantage towards more highly skilled activities, is complementary, as well as competitive, with local talent. But compared with the United States, which has a similar history and policy, immigrants form a much larger proportion of the labour force here and are particularly highly represented at its upper echelons.
My own experience with Chinese and Indian nationals who studied in Singapore's universities, often on Singapore government scholarships, worked here for a few years, then went to the US to pursue their MBAs, suggests that most use the place as a stepping stone to the American job market. They tell me it is easier to get into a top American MBA programme, and to get a US visa, if they apply from Singapore than from their home countries. In the US, they tend to identify much more with students from their countries of origin, than with Singaporeans.
Economically, the circular flow of talent may benefit the economy by enhancing its flexibility. But politically and socially it may be a problem. The nation, after all, is a political entity, and its ability to survive as such is already undermined in an era when globalisation allows economic survival and prosperity to occur with the bypassing of the national authorities in an increasingly 'borderless' world.
Today, in Singapore, place and nation increasingly do not coincide: Many of those in the place are not of the nation, and many of the nation are not to be found in the place.
What then constitutes the nation if it is to be more than an aggregation of the temporary or permanent residents of a place?
As elsewhere, there are different ways of 'being Singaporean', though much of our pre-nation-state identity was erased - most notably through language policy - to forge a 'new' national identity that would not conflict with survival and prosperity in a globalised world or encourage challenge to established domestic political authority.
National identity has been reshaped to serve economic and political goals, with the state itself becoming the determinant and arbiter of acceptable ethnic identities and their expressions, such as the enforced diminution of the Malay heritage of Peranakan Chinese and of the dialect heritage of the majority non-Mandarin-speaking Chinese. If what makes a nation is its collective memory and shared values, it is difficult to find the nation in a place where memory has been erased or reconstructed and values pared to emphasise only social stability and material prosperity.
Fearful of the emergence of alternate centres of power, the Singapore state has pre-empted local private initiative in civil society as well as the economy, precluding the independent political involvement which engages and defines the citizens of nations but is typically denied foreigners, making them easier to control and, thus perhaps, the preferred inhabitants of the place.
A high-performing paternalistic state which engenders passive dependence and apathy on the part of contented - or fearful - citizens is perhaps a greater threat to nationhood than an under-performing state which permits and provokes active civic and political participation.
A nation cannot exist in a political vacuum and, as in any organisation, the empowerment of stakeholders is necessary to engender the 'sense of ownership' that can elicit the best performance from citizens as well as foreign talent. As parents and teachers, we know that the best way to develop our children and students is to let them 'own' projects and make their own mistakes while 'learning-by-doing', even though we may be more efficient at doing things than they are.
A 'global city' implies 'global citizens' like our immigrant ancestors, distinguished by their willingness and ability to move and change nationality in response to the ever-shifting competitive attractions of other places. A 'global city' also requires leadership by a cosmopolitan elite able to navigate the complexities of a global economy, further legitimating continued political control by the members of such an elite. We may even end up with a situation where Singaporean 'heartlanders', emotionally committed to their birthplace and relatively immobile in the global job market, are ruled by potentially footloose 'foreign talent', while members of the Singapore-born elite, raised to be 'global', depart for foreign shores.
VIEWING Singapore as a 'place' versus a 'nation' affects public policy. For example, Nature Society president Geh Min has noted that viewing Singapore as a city results in its physical environment being managed by urban planners and our land resources treated as real estate, defined by their globally determined commercial market value. Open spaces are seen as having value only as manicured parks, improving the urban quality of life.
Considering Singapore as a nation, however, would result in its physical territory, including the biodiversity represented in wild areas, being valued as a national treasure and birthright. Wild lands might then be preserved in their natural state for their emotive and affective appeal for nationals.
In education, Singapore the place and global city would overweight technical training of commercial value in subordinate parts of global value chains, and underweight the study of Singapore history, languages and literature which, like its security and economic future, are inextricably linked with those of its South-east Asian neighbours.
Singaporean scholarship students in the US have told me that they are often embarrassed that they do not know enough about their country and its neighbourhood to answer the questions of interested Americans.
Many Singaporeans see 'no use' in learning or thinking about our own past or present, while foreign faculty in local universities shy away from doing research on Singapore that might be construed as 'controversial' or critical of the imagined local conventional wisdom.
A place 'unknown' to its own privileged and educated youth, and which fades away in teaching and research, risks disappearing as a nation.
I believe that national identity must have an irrational and not just an economically rational component, coming from emotional ties rather than pragmatic self-interest.
If I choose to become a member of a nation because it gives me a good job and lifestyle, I am really interested in that nation only as a place, and it makes sense if one day I leave it for another place which can offer me superior conditions and opportunities.
It is when I stick around when a place cannot guarantee me a good life, or I am concerned with the welfare of others in that place, and try to improve things even at a risk to my own good life (say, I join the political opposition), that I can say I am of the nation, and not just the place.
In the same manner, it is when I enter public service even though it pays a fraction of what I could earn in the private sector, that I can claim to be primarily interested in the public good and national welfare and to have a passion for public service.
A recent audience of Singaporean students at an Ivy League university nearly all raised their hands when I asked if they were 'afraid of failure'. But tolerance of risk and acceptance of failure are required for political democracy, business entrepreneurship, knowledge creation and scientific discovery.
If 'fear of failure' among the young elite of a place as successful as Singapore comes from a culture created by a strong state (since it is not present in ethnic Chinese communities elsewhere), this may undermine the nation, and possibly even the economy of the place itself.
The writer, a Singaporean, is professor of strategy at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business and director of the Centre for South-east Asian Studies, University of Michigan.This article is adapted from a talk given at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies on June 8.
Excellent speech, but nothing new that this recruit doesn't already know. Dollars and cents are what make this island go round enriching the famiLEE, their cronies and elities. And now the little Lee clown wants S'poreans to smile more at foreigners?! I say "fuck you PAP! Nah!!" *showing one finger salute*
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Letter to the Lees
14 Jun 2006
Mr Lee Kuan Yew
Mr Lee Hsien Loong
It is with much regret, though not with the slightest surprise, that we learn from your lawyer this morning that you are considering applying for summary judgment in the lawsuit that you have taken against us. We had suspected all along that you would try to avoid going to open trial. Our suspicion seems to have basis.
We have repeatedly told you since the day you sent us your letter of demand that we will not apologise and that we look forward to seeing the both of you in court. There is, therefore, absolutely no case for a summary judgment. Such an application would become a laughing stock of the world.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew said on 9 May 2006: "If anybody calls me a liar and dishonest, I'll take him straightaway to court. I'll be in the witness box..." By going for summary judgment, how are you going to be in the witness box? And if you don’t get into the witness box, what conclusions do you expect us to draw from this?
We have lined up a list of witnesses that will support our defence and tear up your case. We have a lawyer, Mr M Ravi, who looks forward to cross-examining you. If you believe that you have just as strong a case, let us go to trial so that we can get to the bottom of everything.
We have said it before and we will say it again: We are prepared to face you in court Please don’t try to avoid this by applying for summary judgment. It is most unbecoming of a Minister Mentor and Prime Minister. If you have the temerity to sue us over the article, at least have the courage to face us in court.
Chee Soon Juan
Chee Siok Chin
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
But yesterday got new development. The van driver up lorry liao. So now police want to charge the 10 robbers with murder.
Wah sibei suay loh... those robbers must be thinking, "knn why the van driver so 不争气, hit his head a bit only mati liao, nabei..."
But seriously hor, murder charge in S’pore carries the penalty of death sentence, so dun pray pray. But what I dun understand is this, how come the charge is murder? Why not manslaughter? Because obviously the 10 suspects’ intention is robbery and not murder, meaning the death of the van driver is not premeditated mah.
Knn the two cases recently of people kena chopped up into pieces, the S’porean man kena charged for murder, but the Filipina woman one classified as manslaughter. Boh liew leh!? How come lidat?? Man and woman different treatment issit? If a person accidentally killed someone and then later chopped up the body into pieces, and this is only manslaughter (误杀), then surely a robbery gone wrong where an innocent fellow accidentally kicked the bucket (almost a week later and body 100% not chopped up) should at the very very VERY most be manslaughter also lor. The intention behind the deed is very clearly not murder (谋杀) mah.
Anyway S'pore justice very "interesting" one. Will keep an eye on this case...
Monday, June 05, 2006
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Thursday, June 01, 2006
At the annual PR Academy conference yesterday, Dr Lee told reporters: "We have no cause to take any action on anybody … You don't go around with a heavy hammer knocking everybody, just for the slightest infringement. We look at the consequences and we look at the intent."
Mr Cock-eye Lee, it's not you don't want to. It's becos if you do you will make yourself look even more stupid. So don't come and pretend to be 大方 now.
Conceding that the jury is still out on whether the Government was right in its cautious approach, Dr Lee said: "While podcasts and videocasts for political advertisements were disallowed during the election period, political parties were able to make their presence felt in cyberspace by making good use of their websites to publicise their programmes. This was on top of the ample coverage given by the mainstream media."
Wahahaha!!! Ample coverage?? Come smell my ass lah u fucking liar!
He said that during his campaigning, a friend sent him the podcast created by bloggers mr brown and Mr Miyagi that poked fun at the James Gomez incident. "I enjoyed it too and had a good laugh," said Dr Lee.
Calling it symptomatic of the Internet, he added: "I must congratulate mr brown … for his funny and clever work … (but) while podcasts can be very entertaining, it would be dangerous if important decisions such as electing representatives to Parliament were based on which side can make the most funny video or podcast." While he accepted the argument that a free flow of information would allow people to form their own opinion, Dr Lee said it was valid only if the information was reliable and accurate.
Who the fuck is going to make decisions based on funny jokes?? Mr Lee really thinks this way? Then not only does he has a cock eye he also has a cock brain. Wait, this is a trick! It's a deliberate bullshit logic that PAP uses all the time - create the most absurd or extreme logic, attribute it to the other side, then suddenly your own position becomes very credible and easy to defend. Knn even a chao recruit can see thru your pattern lah!
"I think those of you who are familiar with the Internet would agree that there are many people who use their websites and blogs to put out malicious and false information in order to further their own agendas. It may not be easy to sort out the enlightening from the confusing which ought to be destined for the trash can."
Said Dr Lee: "Such stories might be completely untrue but how do we rebut it on the Internet and get a correction carried on hundreds of blogs, bulletins and chatrooms which rapidly propagated such lies?"
Wait, you can sue what, PAP's favourite pattern what! Your emperor master say one leh.. if don't sue then it's true leh. So what are you waiting for?? Unless *gasp* those "lies" are true! Hahahaha!
Nonetheless, Dr Lee said the Government fully understood the mood among the youth who see blogging as their right.
"We have adopted a light touch approach in dealing with the everyday use of the Internet. We will continue to do so and accept that the Internet and new media will remain largely a free-for-all. However during the election period when such free-for-all may result in undesirable situations, we cannot take a completely hands-off approach."
Light touch ma ass!!! Don't talk like u can do something about it but you won't. Wah so kind ah?? The fact is you CAN'T or DON'T DARE to do anything about it, moron! So stop farting through your mouth hor.
"The Government will not compromise its position," said Dr Lee. "We will not risk the precious racial and religious harmony which underpins
Yawnzzz... the same old stale line about stability and progress again. Can come up with something new anot? Knn buay sian one ah? The only risk is that a quitter like you who is paid to look stupid and say stupid things don't dare to risk your millions dollar paycheck from the lanjiao Leegime!