Well, President Nathan finally came forward to explain his rationale for releasing the funds and all but I'm a tat too lazy to write in to praise him for it so I'll just do so on my blog...hehe..
Well, they gave him an entire front page plus centre portion of the Straits Times paper that day. An interview to clarify points and such, not a bad read although I would have preferred more details (it seemed rather general) as to how he came to a conclusion. I would also have preferred to see more private sector CEOs seating on the Council of Presidential Advisors so that President Nathan would be able to get a clearer picture of what's happening in Singapore. Doesn't hurt to have more qualified advisors yeah? After all, the nature of the presidency is not well-disposed to giving out governmental favours (apart from official pardons for parole prisoners), especially not to businesses, so no worries where such advice can be drawn from. Anyway, the President has the final say yeah?
Nevertheless, its a good thing that we're getting more accountability from the government which would doubtlessly benefit all of us in the long run...
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Annual Fertility Day!!! (Valentine's Special)
Ok,I'd readily admit that this post is long overdue but still, with a flurry of activity (and a good dose of laziness) over the past few days, I claim official pardon for this late post...
Valentine's Day conversation (with a friend whom I shall christen L)
L: So you have any plans for tonight? It's Valentine's Day!
Me: No, not quite, no date.Lol!
L: Sure or not? Shouldn't you be out with some hot babe tonight?
Me: Nahz, I'm just came back a few hours back and am currently resting before heading out for a Bachelors' Night Out...Yeah, that's about it...
That rest, is history not worth mentioning...
What started off eons ago as the execution of a priest (St Valentine), who refused to abide a law instituted by the Roman Emperor Claudius II that young men remain single, has morphed into an excuse for cheery flowers, over-stuffed teddy bears and ridiculous couples dressed in ridiculous colour-coordinated outfits.
Oh yeah, you know I'm right, newspapers start to publicise the merger and acquisition of the Social Development Unit (SDU) by the Social Development Service (SDS) as if it just won the Merger of The Century and was the miracle of this recession. Oh, how parents in Singapore are catching up to their counterparts in China in the Curious Case of Match-making. Wasn't that The Fad last millenium? Or was it Fort-millenium?
DeeJays Jamie Yeo and Glenn Ong became the Divorced Couple of the Year while Brad Pitt is going gaga all over the new and improvised Jennifer Aniston in a potential Makeup Couple of the Year (Divorce and Remarried - Reloaded).
Or pity Ugly Betty, who just needed a good nerd to love her (and at least 15 episodes of Extreme Makeover, make it an entire series). When exactly are Christopher Lee and Fann Wong going to get married anyway? They've already done a reel version of it. Arh...reel life VS real life? Apparently, not everyone's heart is capable of going on and on and on like Celine Dion's Energiser operated one.
In case you're wondering, I don't have a cesspit where my heart should be. I do believe in love, at least in the screens and I can do romantic I suppose but no pouncing about the moon or dancing amongst the stars.
Its really strange when you think of the kind of movies Hollywood releases during Valentine's. So Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway are still at it, battling it out in an ongoing war which has been repeating itself for a few weeks now (they really must hate each other) while Andy Lau is discovering that even in this day and age, not everyone takes to the idea of pre-nupital contracts, even if they come from an industry veteran who should probably be halfway into retirement and signing up for the governments' HDB leasing initiative although he probably owns tonnes of properties in Hong Kong.
Valentine's Day conversation (with a friend whom I shall christen L)
L: So you have any plans for tonight? It's Valentine's Day!
Me: No, not quite, no date.Lol!
L: Sure or not? Shouldn't you be out with some hot babe tonight?
Me: Nahz, I'm just came back a few hours back and am currently resting before heading out for a Bachelors' Night Out...Yeah, that's about it...
That rest, is history not worth mentioning...
What started off eons ago as the execution of a priest (St Valentine), who refused to abide a law instituted by the Roman Emperor Claudius II that young men remain single, has morphed into an excuse for cheery flowers, over-stuffed teddy bears and ridiculous couples dressed in ridiculous colour-coordinated outfits.
Oh yeah, you know I'm right, newspapers start to publicise the merger and acquisition of the Social Development Unit (SDU) by the Social Development Service (SDS) as if it just won the Merger of The Century and was the miracle of this recession. Oh, how parents in Singapore are catching up to their counterparts in China in the Curious Case of Match-making. Wasn't that The Fad last millenium? Or was it Fort-millenium?
DeeJays Jamie Yeo and Glenn Ong became the Divorced Couple of the Year while Brad Pitt is going gaga all over the new and improvised Jennifer Aniston in a potential Makeup Couple of the Year (Divorce and Remarried - Reloaded).
Or pity Ugly Betty, who just needed a good nerd to love her (and at least 15 episodes of Extreme Makeover, make it an entire series). When exactly are Christopher Lee and Fann Wong going to get married anyway? They've already done a reel version of it. Arh...reel life VS real life? Apparently, not everyone's heart is capable of going on and on and on like Celine Dion's Energiser operated one.
In case you're wondering, I don't have a cesspit where my heart should be. I do believe in love, at least in the screens and I can do romantic I suppose but no pouncing about the moon or dancing amongst the stars.
Its really strange when you think of the kind of movies Hollywood releases during Valentine's. So Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway are still at it, battling it out in an ongoing war which has been repeating itself for a few weeks now (they really must hate each other) while Andy Lau is discovering that even in this day and age, not everyone takes to the idea of pre-nupital contracts, even if they come from an industry veteran who should probably be halfway into retirement and signing up for the governments' HDB leasing initiative although he probably owns tonnes of properties in Hong Kong.
Friday, February 13, 2009
A Letter Too Sensitive For Publication in the ST Forum???
Well, I emailed the following letter to the Straits Times forum a few days ago.What spurred me to write in was an article published by the Straits Times main paper (6 Febuary2009) in which I uncovered some distorted logic in Mr Tharman Shanmugam's (Minister of Finance) explanation for declining the release of details of the President's deliberation on the budget.
Keeping to the 400 word limit(I wanted to write more a build up an even more solid case but then again, word limit...), the letter is as follows:
I read the article “Govt details steps leading to President’s OK” (6 February) with grave concern.
Mr Tharman had reportedly dismissed Mr Inderjit Singh’s request for the President’s deliberations, citing that Singaporeans should trust the individuals who are in charge. For a system which has long pride itself on a transparent, efficient and clean government, such a drastic change in its stance has certainly raised eyebrows, especially during these tough times. While I believe few Singaporeans would begrudge Mr Tharman’s well-meaning intention to ensure fiscal responsibility where matters of our reserves are concerned, surely fewer still would want a veil of secrecy surrounding the decision-making process. It is even more essential, during these uncertain times that the public is reassured about how such a landmark decision concerning our nation’s savings was conceived.
With well-respected and trusted leaders such as Mr Bernie Madoff and Mr Chen Shui-bian coming under tight scrutiny for possible abuses of client’s and public funds respectively, public trust has been eroded. One was a businessman who ran a billion-dollar wealth management empire for more than four decades while the other was propelled into Presidential office by a popular vote. These were two figures whom the public trusted enough to handle millions of their hard-earned savings, only to watch it all collapse into nothingness. The public were led to believe that a system of checks and balances was in place to protect their interest but the system failed them.
While it would be vastly unfair to draw parallels to our own President, who by all accounts have Singaporean’s utmost respect, emphasis on accountability should not be neglected under any circumstances. Only then can we continue to build a competitive system beneficial to all Singaporeans and free from taint of corruption and deception. Considering that there are two sets of “keys” to unlock the reserves and a stringent set of requirements to be met before any withdrawal can take place, I’m confident that our reserves would not be so easily squandered on less meritorious purposes overtime even if the President’s deliberations were to be made public. Likewise, I have faith that Singaporeans, with their strong pragmatic mindsets, would not be so easily taken to casually tapping on our reserves.
Hence, I strongly urge the government to release the entire set of deliberations to the public, that our trust in the institution would be further strengthened.
Actually, I had 2 motivations for this letter:
1) I honestly wanted a greater degree of accountability from the government. I mean if MPs can query the government in a logical, civilised manner...why can't I?
2) To verify the rumour that certain letters which deliver the truth are being black out for fear that it would create more work for certain ministries and make themselves more accountable to the public, hence a personal experiment.
The result?
The letter was rejected "due to space constraints".
Yeah, probably that might have been the case had I not stumble upon a letter written by Albert Tye and published on 11 February 2009, Straits Times Forum praising Ms Ho Ching for stepping down from her position as CEO at Temasek and encouraging her to support her husband in state duties.
Like how is a letter praising Ms Ho Ching's resignation more important than one seeking to improve the overall system of Singapore's governance? The same thing happened the last time I wrote in a letter to rebut Mr Janadas Devan's (a Straits Times Editor) logic on a certain article (And I had a super strong argument which totally owned his!)
Argh! I give up, with my personal blog, I can continue my own brand of rebuttals as and when I feel like it...Without "space constraints".
On a side note:
Of course the editors at the Straits Times and the Media Development Authority (the institution which censors publications) reserve the right to decide what goes into the forum and what does not and I have utmost respect for them.Nevertheless I too reserve the right to express my thoughts and stake out my stand on issues, backed by logical arguments, for the betterment of our nation!
'The truth, the truth and nothing but the truth!' Sounds familiar?
Keeping to the 400 word limit(I wanted to write more a build up an even more solid case but then again, word limit...), the letter is as follows:
I read the article “Govt details steps leading to President’s OK” (6 February) with grave concern.
Mr Tharman had reportedly dismissed Mr Inderjit Singh’s request for the President’s deliberations, citing that Singaporeans should trust the individuals who are in charge. For a system which has long pride itself on a transparent, efficient and clean government, such a drastic change in its stance has certainly raised eyebrows, especially during these tough times. While I believe few Singaporeans would begrudge Mr Tharman’s well-meaning intention to ensure fiscal responsibility where matters of our reserves are concerned, surely fewer still would want a veil of secrecy surrounding the decision-making process. It is even more essential, during these uncertain times that the public is reassured about how such a landmark decision concerning our nation’s savings was conceived.
With well-respected and trusted leaders such as Mr Bernie Madoff and Mr Chen Shui-bian coming under tight scrutiny for possible abuses of client’s and public funds respectively, public trust has been eroded. One was a businessman who ran a billion-dollar wealth management empire for more than four decades while the other was propelled into Presidential office by a popular vote. These were two figures whom the public trusted enough to handle millions of their hard-earned savings, only to watch it all collapse into nothingness. The public were led to believe that a system of checks and balances was in place to protect their interest but the system failed them.
While it would be vastly unfair to draw parallels to our own President, who by all accounts have Singaporean’s utmost respect, emphasis on accountability should not be neglected under any circumstances. Only then can we continue to build a competitive system beneficial to all Singaporeans and free from taint of corruption and deception. Considering that there are two sets of “keys” to unlock the reserves and a stringent set of requirements to be met before any withdrawal can take place, I’m confident that our reserves would not be so easily squandered on less meritorious purposes overtime even if the President’s deliberations were to be made public. Likewise, I have faith that Singaporeans, with their strong pragmatic mindsets, would not be so easily taken to casually tapping on our reserves.
Hence, I strongly urge the government to release the entire set of deliberations to the public, that our trust in the institution would be further strengthened.
Actually, I had 2 motivations for this letter:
1) I honestly wanted a greater degree of accountability from the government. I mean if MPs can query the government in a logical, civilised manner...why can't I?
2) To verify the rumour that certain letters which deliver the truth are being black out for fear that it would create more work for certain ministries and make themselves more accountable to the public, hence a personal experiment.
The result?
The letter was rejected "due to space constraints".
Yeah, probably that might have been the case had I not stumble upon a letter written by Albert Tye and published on 11 February 2009, Straits Times Forum praising Ms Ho Ching for stepping down from her position as CEO at Temasek and encouraging her to support her husband in state duties.
Like how is a letter praising Ms Ho Ching's resignation more important than one seeking to improve the overall system of Singapore's governance? The same thing happened the last time I wrote in a letter to rebut Mr Janadas Devan's (a Straits Times Editor) logic on a certain article (And I had a super strong argument which totally owned his!)
Argh! I give up, with my personal blog, I can continue my own brand of rebuttals as and when I feel like it...Without "space constraints".
On a side note:
Of course the editors at the Straits Times and the Media Development Authority (the institution which censors publications) reserve the right to decide what goes into the forum and what does not and I have utmost respect for them.Nevertheless I too reserve the right to express my thoughts and stake out my stand on issues, backed by logical arguments, for the betterment of our nation!
'The truth, the truth and nothing but the truth!' Sounds familiar?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Singlish - Singapore's English?
I'm back! Lots of free time now that NS is over so I'll probably be updating this blog more of often!
Well, call it a steal but I borrowed the concept of 'Singlish' from a friend who blogged about the usage of Singlish...Was asked to comment on it and comment on it I did but at the risk of flooding her comment section, hence may I present....My very own "Singlish" entry!
Today, we shall consult Singlish linguist Sina Kosta...
Singlish has often been termed a creole interlanguage which has stubbornly defied the government's attempts to put an end to the corruption of the genuine English language as purported by the elite. May I so emphasize that the only ones who probably speak Queen's English these days are the British and those who were educated during the Colonial era. HEck!Even the other "Native Speakers" of the the English language (Australians, Americans,etc) have taken to slangs and colloquialism not unlike Singlish.
A check with wiki's definition of Singlish revealed that someone actually came up with a classification for English speakers in Singapore. Here's the summary:
Acrolectal: British English, less the thick Brit slang. Most often utilised during formal occasions or in business speak to project an image of professionalism.
(Novices in Singlish, if not totally oblivious)
Mesolectal: Halfway there, most commonly utilised form of Singlish in Singapore.
Basilectal: The ultimate graduates and masters of the Singlish language. Most often utilised by the Ah Bengs and Ah Lians of the Singlish World. Often incapable of articulating a proper sentence in perfect English (Just a totally misunderstood lot really).
**WARNING** Average native speaker of English would not be able to understand Basilectal at all - its that powderful**WARNING**
Here's an example of their sentence structure:
Acrolect ("Standard") -"This person's Singlish is very good."
Mesolect" - Dis guy Singlish damn powerful one leh."
Basilect ("Singlish") - "Dis guy Singrish si beh"powderful sia.
And now back to our interview with Sina Kosta...
Singlish is definitely an economical form of communication and I would support its usage as being unique to our motherland, yet easily accessible by recent migrants. Its distinct quality lies in the fact that one can easily identify a fellow Singaporean whilst in a foreign country the moment he/she opens his mouth.
For one, it takes a local upbringing to grasp the naunces of Singlish (like whether the 'lah' or 'lidddat' should come at the start or end of a sentence) and not to forget the fact that years of cultivation it takes to master the right tone of a 'har?'...I mean anyone can insert 'lor', 'meh', 'larh' into their sentence but somehow the newly-arrived ang moh expat who lives down the street simply doesn't seem to get it right. Agreed?
The vocabulary of the language in itself is a beauty, a blend of various languages - Baba Malay, Bahasa Melayu, Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Tamil and whatnot revolving around and often substituting words from an English core.
Oh, and did I mention economical?
Take for instance a corporate board meeting or school project for that matter...
Head of Operations: Our customers bo chap our latest extra value meal leh
Chairman looks at the Head of Marketing: Liddat how?
Imagine how different the conversation would have been if proper English were used:
Head of Operations: We seem to have a problem attracting customers to buy into our latest extra value meal product.
Chairman looks at the Head of Marketing: Any suggestions from the marketing viewpoint?
Observe the difference? Now you understand why Singapore often tops the chart for efficiency...just imagine a thousand such meetings occurring islandwide?
Another perculiar observation would be the grammatical usage of a "Den" (Singlish for 'then', or perhaps not alway the case...) which really is a very flexible term:
1) As a convenient term for "therefore"
- Late for school den kena scolding mah
2) As a would be verb
- Later den say
3) As a replacement for the comma:
- Suay lah! Was makan-ing my Nasi Lemak this morning. Den hor, got bird shit on my food!
4) As a replacement for "What happened then?"
- Coxta: I was brushing my teeth this morning
- Kosta: Den?
5) As a sarcastic remark (Roughly translated as "If not me, then who?")
- Coxta: Wah! You painted this house on your own arh?
- Kosta: Ah Bah Den?
6) Of course, with Singlish being extremely economical in nature, there's a short-form for the above point 5.
- Coxta: Wah!You painted this house on your own arh?
- Kosta: Dennn?
I shan't go into more details with the "lahs","lorhs","Wat","Mah", "leh", etc but they're all highly interesting and specialised vocabulary unique to Singlish.
Man am I proud to be a Singaporean!
Please note: Sina Kosta is overwhelmingly biased in favour of Singlish and hence you might just want to take his comments with a pinch of salt (or satt)
Well, call it a steal but I borrowed the concept of 'Singlish' from a friend who blogged about the usage of Singlish...Was asked to comment on it and comment on it I did but at the risk of flooding her comment section, hence may I present....My very own "Singlish" entry!
Today, we shall consult Singlish linguist Sina Kosta...
Introduction
But first, some background information:Singlish has often been termed a creole interlanguage which has stubbornly defied the government's attempts to put an end to the corruption of the genuine English language as purported by the elite. May I so emphasize that the only ones who probably speak Queen's English these days are the British and those who were educated during the Colonial era. HEck!Even the other "Native Speakers" of the the English language (Australians, Americans,etc) have taken to slangs and colloquialism not unlike Singlish.
A check with wiki's definition of Singlish revealed that someone actually came up with a classification for English speakers in Singapore. Here's the summary:
Acrolectal: British English, less the thick Brit slang. Most often utilised during formal occasions or in business speak to project an image of professionalism.
(Novices in Singlish, if not totally oblivious)
Mesolectal: Halfway there, most commonly utilised form of Singlish in Singapore.
Basilectal: The ultimate graduates and masters of the Singlish language. Most often utilised by the Ah Bengs and Ah Lians of the Singlish World. Often incapable of articulating a proper sentence in perfect English (Just a totally misunderstood lot really).
**WARNING** Average native speaker of English would not be able to understand Basilectal at all - its that powderful**WARNING**
Here's an example of their sentence structure:
Acrolect ("Standard") -"This person's Singlish is very good."
Mesolect" - Dis guy Singlish damn powerful one leh."
Basilect ("Singlish") - "Dis guy Singrish si beh"powderful sia.
And now back to our interview with Sina Kosta...
Singlish is definitely an economical form of communication and I would support its usage as being unique to our motherland, yet easily accessible by recent migrants. Its distinct quality lies in the fact that one can easily identify a fellow Singaporean whilst in a foreign country the moment he/she opens his mouth.
For one, it takes a local upbringing to grasp the naunces of Singlish (like whether the 'lah' or 'lidddat' should come at the start or end of a sentence) and not to forget the fact that years of cultivation it takes to master the right tone of a 'har?'...I mean anyone can insert 'lor', 'meh', 'larh' into their sentence but somehow the newly-arrived ang moh expat who lives down the street simply doesn't seem to get it right. Agreed?
The vocabulary of the language in itself is a beauty, a blend of various languages - Baba Malay, Bahasa Melayu, Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Tamil and whatnot revolving around and often substituting words from an English core.
Oh, and did I mention economical?
Take for instance a corporate board meeting or school project for that matter...
Head of Operations: Our customers bo chap our latest extra value meal leh
Chairman looks at the Head of Marketing: Liddat how?
Imagine how different the conversation would have been if proper English were used:
Head of Operations: We seem to have a problem attracting customers to buy into our latest extra value meal product.
Chairman looks at the Head of Marketing: Any suggestions from the marketing viewpoint?
Observe the difference? Now you understand why Singapore often tops the chart for efficiency...just imagine a thousand such meetings occurring islandwide?
Another perculiar observation would be the grammatical usage of a "Den" (Singlish for 'then', or perhaps not alway the case...) which really is a very flexible term:
1) As a convenient term for "therefore"
- Late for school den kena scolding mah
2) As a would be verb
- Later den say
3) As a replacement for the comma:
- Suay lah! Was makan-ing my Nasi Lemak this morning. Den hor, got bird shit on my food!
4) As a replacement for "What happened then?"
- Coxta: I was brushing my teeth this morning
- Kosta: Den?
5) As a sarcastic remark (Roughly translated as "If not me, then who?")
- Coxta: Wah! You painted this house on your own arh?
- Kosta: Ah Bah Den?
6) Of course, with Singlish being extremely economical in nature, there's a short-form for the above point 5.
- Coxta: Wah!You painted this house on your own arh?
- Kosta: Dennn?
I shan't go into more details with the "lahs","lorhs","Wat","Mah", "leh", etc but they're all highly interesting and specialised vocabulary unique to Singlish.
Man am I proud to be a Singaporean!
Please note: Sina Kosta is overwhelmingly biased in favour of Singlish and hence you might just want to take his comments with a pinch of salt (or satt)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
