Claim your land Singaporeans, or someone else will

We were born free men and women of Singapore. We were educated, in a largely civilized society, and built a great land for ourselves and our children. Now the very things we have invested in are being taken away from us, cut into pieces and sold to the highest bidder, very often from foreign lands.

I firmly believe in the right to private property, but not when the acquisition of that property was made using state subsidies and statutes based on eminent domain. This is our land, our birth right, and we must send a clear message, that while we want to play ball with the world, we will not let our team be kicked around, bent over and spanked.

This is our land and we must fight for it, against all attackers, both foreign and domestic.

Singaporeans need to understand that while we need to be a part of a global economy, the foreigners must also learn how to be a part of us, especially when they are on our soil. A partnership is a two-way relationship. The proper name for a one-way relationship is slavery.

I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Securing our future together after many good years

We must not develop a crutch mentality. Remember our track record. This is a footloose generation who need a good dose of bad government. Then your mother, sister and daughters will become maids in a third world country, and you will repent. Vote carefully. Securing our future together. Many more good years!

1. The crutch mentality

$130 a month vs $3,000,000 a year (250,000 a month)?

• Who is using the crutch?
• Who is really eating in the hotel, restaurant or food court?

2. Remember our track record. This is a footloose generation who need a good dose of bad government:

• Mas Selamat - it has happened, what to do?
• Flooding - twice in 50 years (adjusting for daylight savings, we arrive at two in one week in real time)
• Youth Olympic Games - three times over budget, but unable to cater proper food for volunteers
• Lehman Mini-Bonds - these are investor grade
• Overcrowded trains - we have sufficient resources to accommodate new arrivals
• Sovereign fund losses of 40 billion - a long term dis-investment
• Medical costs skyrocket - give us a strong mandate and we will keep medical costs low
• Public Housing skyrocket - housing is affordable
• More jobs for Singaporeans - 36% of population is now foreign

3. Then your mother, sister and daughters will become maids in a third world country, and you will repent:

• Shall we wait till we get to this point?

4. Vote carefully. Securing our future together. Many more good years!

We are here to make a choice

On May 7th, we will choose our representatives in Parliament. All the parties have asked us to choose carefully. We are surrounded by many choices; some clear whilst others confusing. At every rally, in the coffee shops, restaurants, on the streets, on Facebook, you see people gathered with one thing on their minds: the choice, or more precisely, the consequences of the choice.

How did we get here, in this place, considering this choice?

We are not gathered here because of the transgressions and pain of the past. We are not here because of the insufferable conditions of the present. Many are upset at the massive influx of foreign workers, the high price of public housing, inflation, the distance between the government and the people, among other reasons. But that is not why we are here.

Some may say we are here because we are afraid; afraid of the future; the uncertainty of it all. We fear for our children, our loved ones, the affordability of education and healthcare. We fear we may not be able to carry on. But that is not why we are here.

We are not here because we are afraid; we are here because we are not afraid. We are too angry to be afraid. We are not hungry; we are full from being fed lies. We are here because we know we do not need to be paid $3 million dollars a year to care about our country. We are here because we want leaders who want to share and prosper; not divide and conquer.

We have been warned that we will regret our decision. It is better to regret something we have done than regret something we haven’t done. Five years ago, most of Singapore did not vote, and now we regret what we could not do. You have convinced us that was a mistake; one we won’t repeat.

You ask for forgiveness. You shed your tears on TV. You ask us to give you a chance to listen to us, to work with us, to share in the prosperity of our great nation; you want five more years to make it right.

You HAD five years to listen to us. You HAD five years to do the right thing. You did not cry for us when you made your choices in Parliament; we will not shed a tear for you. You have shown us that you can make mistakes but refuse to face the consequences. We need idealism, not fatalism in our leaders; you have shown us that we do not need you in our future.

On May 7^th, we will do what we should have done five years ago. We will choose our future as a nation; all of us. We will choose leaders who want to serve, instead of demanding to be served. We will reject those who demand entitlement, and welcome those who deliver empowerment. This time we will choose wisely, because we actually have a choice, and our choice matters.

Is F**K a bad word? [WARNING: Mature, Adult Language]

This is inspired by Wayne Rooney's recent punishment by the English FA, and Lewis Black's stand up comedy routine: Red, White and Screwed.

FUCK is not a bad word. FUCK is used by grown-ups to express frustration, anger and break out of self-pity. FUCK is the start of new life, in and out of the bedroom. Denying yourself a FUCK is to deny yourself the right to be a mature human being; that's why only grown ups FUCK.

FUCK is blind to everything but age. Anyone can FUCK (except kids, that's just wrong). But racism, sexism, elitism, and other forms of discrimination are all powerless against FUCK. You may stand on either side of a debate between gays and straight people, but you won't stop adults who want their FUCK.

A new day, a new war

News Alert

from The Wall Street Journal

The Obama administration is seeking a United Nations Security Council resolution that would authorize a wide range of possible military strikes against the forces of Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi, aimed at preventing them from overrunning rebels and civilians in the country’s east, officials said.

In discussions with other Security Council members, the Obama administration is making the case that a no-fly zone alone would be "insufficient" to save the rebel capital of Benghazi, in eastern Libya.

The U.S. is seeking a broad U.N. authorization for strikes aimed at holding back Libyan ground and air forces with the aim of protecting Benghazi and avoiding a humanitarian crisis there. Military operations could include a no-fly zone but wouldn't be limited to that, officials said.

Long meetings

I hate long meetings. I hate meetings without an agenda. I hate meetings where an entire army sits in one place for hours on end, and each person only participates for 5-10 mins. There has to be a more efficient way to manage projects, and here is how.

1. Set an agenda with clear objectives, issues, time limits, and assignment of duties

2. Set clear times for each speaker

3. Enforce punctuality and punish tardiness

4. Time limit for decision making

5. Stick to the agenda

Unfair practices in the mobile phone industry

I think there are many things which are unfair in the cell phone industry. The following are the ones which annoy me the most:

1. Liquid submersion indicators (LSI)

When you send your cell phone for replacement or repairs, the manufacturer performs a check for user defects (drops or internal damage) and checks the liquid submersion indicators (LSI) for water damage. A white LSI means no water damage, while a red LSI indicates water damage, making you responsible for the cost of repairs and replacement parts.

Only the manufacturer knows where all the LSIs are. This information is often not given to the customer in promotional materials or support documentation.

This is extremely unfair because, unlike the manufacturer, you would not know where the LSIs are, and would not be able to check for water damage when you receive the phone!

How would you know when the LSIs were triggered? You could have bought a phone with a triggered red LSI because of extreme humidity or internal condensation, and still be blamed for it because you did not know how to check for damage.

It is even worse if you bought your phone online because you would never have had the chance to check for damage, even if you were given the information and the right to do it.

SOLUTION: Tell buyers where all the LSIs are and how to check if the phone is defective upon arrival. Include the information on websites, support documentation and include a pre-use guide with example photos of a phone in good condition.

2. Opening cell phone internals voids the warranty

Manufacturers will always check the internals upon receipt of your cell phone. This allows them to determine if the phone is in the condition you described as terms for a warranty claim.

However, they do not give you the same right to check the phone when you receive it. This prevents you from checking the condition of the phone when you buy it, which is especially important in an online purchase.

You are not accorded the same rights as the manufacturer to ensure you have received a product as described.

This means, even if the customer service representative or technical assistance specialists told you where the LSIs would be, you could not check it upon delivery. You are not allowed to look at it. This is like stating, "If you open the car to check that it has an engine, you void the warranty."

SOLUTION: Make all internal phone plastic transparent so that users can easily see if anything was broken or if LSIs were triggered. This avoids the need for opening the internals to perform the checks. Include photos of what a properly working phone should look like in support documentation or pre-use guides. When users first start using the cell phone, it should tell them what to check and how to check it.

3. Mobile wireless service providers falsely claiming coverage

Wireless providers are notorious for claiming coverage in places they have little to no coverage. A provider would claim to cover 90% of a country, but it is irrelevant if you are in the 10% that is not covered. Often people check coverage maps (which very few countries offer publicly) and it appears they are covered, however, the quality of service is often weak or non-existent. The providers get away with this with a vague clause such as: "Signal strength depends on other factors such as network use..."

This is extremely unfair because you are being billed whether or not the service was delivered or relevant to you. You are being charged for an unused service and have no alternative option.

Absurd examples:

(a) If a steakhouse said they have stores which feed 90% of the nation, does it automatically mean you eat there?

(b) Can you insert a vague clause into your cell phone contract which says: "Bill payment reliability depends on other factors such as monthly income..."?

SOLUTION: Prominently displayed coverage maps on promotional materials should be an industry standard for all providers. Consumers should have the option to select plans which charge on a time-weighted, average-coverage basis. So if a user spends 90% of their time in an uncovered zone, their bill should only charge for the 10% of time in a covered zone. Also, a customer on a fixed-rate subscription plan should either be refunded or given credits for the amount of time service is down while the customer is in the covered area.

4. Mobile wireless service providers claiming "up to XYZ" speed

This is something else which is extremely unfair. The wireless companies claim their network can achieve up to 7.2 Mbps, with a clause which states, "depending on network conditions and number of users.."

This is not rocket science. They have the data and they know how many people are online at a time, the ability of the network to handle the traffic, and the average and maximum throughput by location.

If 90% of the users, 90% of the time never achieve speeds anywhere close to 7.2 Mbps, should a provider be allowed to keep marketing its services in this unfair manner? Should you even be billed for service quality which was never delivered?

If users can achieve a download rate of 7.2 Mbps only when there are no other users online, and we know there will always be other users online, this means you will never achieve 7.2 Mbps, in spite of the claim of "up to 7.2 Mbps."

This is like claiming, "My product is unbreakable as long as nothing solid, liquid or gas, touches it."

Also, charging variable rates by data size without consideration for speed or connection quality is extremely unfair. A user who keeps getting dropped packets could be charged more for data simply because the network interprets the users is requesting excessive packets, when it is network congestion which causes the problem.

SOLUTION: Consumers should have options to pay on a time-weighted-average-speed basis. They should have the means to select plans based on their data consumption, speed requirements and connection quality. If you are in a bad coverage area, with low speed, or a connection which keeps dropping packets, why should you be charged the same for it?

Consumers should have the right to pay "up to $20 a month, depending on network conditions and number of users..."