Monday, 30 June 2014

A discriminating look at the Pink, the White, and the Ugly.

The comment on this news article:
The issue is not about homosexuality, or heterosexuality, or your sexual orientation, or your values. The issue is about Discrimination. 
What is the difference between these statements: 
1) The Jews killed Jesus.
2) The Gays will destroy our society, our morals, our values. 
The issue for the LGBT is that their sexual orientation leads to situations where they find themselves discriminated against, and these discrimination are instituted in our laws (e.g. 377A), and our customs (e.g. social and legal definition of marriage). 

Tuesday, 24 June 2014

A Rosy Hue (settles all around)

From an On-line comment on the "Wear White" reactionary campaign to the "Pink Dot" event.

It would be interesting to see how the govt will respond to Lawrence Khong's claim to "defend the official position of the SG govt". 
In a sense, the govt may have painted itself into a corner. 
By keeping 377A on the books (criminalising sex "against the order of nature", IIRC), they (the govt) defended their decision as moving as fast as SG society is prepared to move. However, in doing so, they have, as Lawrence Khong might put it, established the official position of the SG govt - that it is a reflection of conservative SG society.

BUT, I believe Lawrence Khong may have overestimated his position. (It is easy when you believe you have God on your side.)

Thursday, 19 June 2014

Coalition Govt III, or The Third Scenario from Speculation 2016

Speculation is always fun. Take a bit of facts. Fantasize a bit. Throw in a bit a luck.

And you're Spiderman.

Or PAP is out.

In my last speculation, my "as-close-to-realistic-as-possible" assessment is that even in a worst case scenario, the PAP would still hang on for at least one more term in 2016.

But what about a "worst-worst-damn-unlucky-suay-suay" situation? (Or "best-best-tio-beh-pio" scenario if that is what you fantasise about?)

What if Chiam See Tong redouble his efforts to take Bishan-Toa Payoh, and LKY decides not to run in Tanjong Pagar, and this resulted in a backlash in Tanjong Pagar.

What if SPP wins Bishan-Toa Payoh, and say NSP takes Tanjong Pagar? Or RP takes Tanjong Pagar, where the Anson supporters still remember JBJ, and votes for his son.

This post is purely in the realm of speculation and fantasy. This is the third scenario of 2016. There is a 10% swing against PAP, WP wins 19 seats, and NSP breaks through with 15 seats. SPP takes the 5 seats in Bishan-Toa Payoh, and RP in a surprise win, takes Tanjong Pagar (5 seats) in part because LKY decides to retire completely from politics.

What now?

Tuesday, 17 June 2014

The Psychology of Poverty - A recent example

Recently (June 8 2014), the news highlighted the circumstances of the widow of a Changi Airport cleaning supervisor who was has killed in an accident in 2012.  She had received almost $1m in donations and insurance payouts for the tragic death of her husband. Donors had felt sympathy for her and wanted to help her and her four children. The money is now all gone. And she is looking for work again to support her family.

Comments on the web were on the whole, angry.

Angry that she had wasted the money. Angry that donations given in good faith was not used to benefit her children, was lost within 2 years. 

Angry that their sacrifices/generosity/kindness (donations) were in vain.

Were those comments fair?

Tuesday, 10 June 2014

Death and Statistics in Singapore.

Singapore has a death rate of 3.41 per 1000 population (according to the CIA world fact book on Singapore).

That means that for every 1000 persons, in a given year, 3.41 of them will die. Or 0.341% annual death rate.

Another way of looking at that statistic or percentage is that every year, less than 1 person in 100 dies. This is the current statistic, but it is not sustainable. Let xkcd explain:
If fewer than one person out of every hundred dies each year (and enough are born to sustain the population) then the average person must have to wait over a hundred years to die—which is clearly not compatible with our current lifespans.
Yes, the 3.41/1000 death rate literally means that our average life span will be as much as 100 years. Which, as we know (from experience, burying - or cremating - our loved ones) is not reality.

What's the explanation?

Tuesday, 3 June 2014


If you're here to read about why the CPF is the worst policy ever, why the government should just #givebackourmoney, and how the government has swindled your CPF, you're at the wrong website.

If you want a more reasonable critique of the CPF scheme, well, I will try to provide one.

First, the government has a terrible PR department. Or the CPF has a terrible PR dept. Just look at the response on Govt Factually website on CPF. The answers will make you want to pull your hair out, and possibly kill someone. Or a small kitten.

For example, it cites as "Myth #4: The CPF Minimum Sum prevents us from using our money." And the answer? "This is not true."

Right. With this sort of delusion, why should we trust anything else on the website?