Hi “shoestring”!

You commented on what I wrote on 2/3/09 at 2:30 PM in my post #45 “TIME TO DISPEL DARKNESS.”

I got the facts and figures, because I involved myself in the matter through my letter of 21/8/06 to help both the old cabby Koo Tong Huat and MP Seng Han Thong (who was punched by cabby Koo). The criminal case number was PS 1138/2006, and the District Judge was Miss Valerie Kheam.

That day 30/10/06 in her Court 5, DJ Valerie allowed the criminal prosecution to be withdrawn as nice man Mr Seng Han Thong was encouraged by me to forgive him. Cabby Koo then thanked MP Seng for forgiving him.

Th matter had nothing to do with the PAP leaders manipulating the matter to make themselves look good. It had everything to do with MP Seng trying to do his best as an MP.

When the second incident happened again, TNP reporter Ms Vivien Chan went up to cabby Koo and interviewed him. He told Ms Chan he had since become MP Seng’s good friend, and would turn up for MP Seng’s community event in the YCK CC.

Now, I had also given RADM Lui these facts through a copy of my 21/8/06 letter to Mr Seng HT when he became my Moulmein MP. So RADM Lui knew what he was talking about. He would be failing in his duty if he kept quiet, as many of you wanted him to keep quiet. Well, if you have your right to speak, does RADM Lui not have his right to speak too?

After all, he wasn’t telling us that he would want to bring more regulations to control internet activities. He was just lamenting the lack of self-policing in internet, and essentially wanted more kind-hearted, helpful and sensible people like me (and you) to come out in force to help others, such as by shedding light and explaining matters for others to understand.

I helped out because I always believe that Singaporeans MUST HELP Singaporeans. If we do not help ourselves, who do you think will help us, “shoestring”? So you are wrong to write that “The audience do not need help to decide on what they want to read.”

Now, if all of us play our part to help each other whenever we could, then we can continue to enjoy our freedom to speak freely and debate with each other, without the need for more government regulations to be brought in. Never mind if we make mistakes with what we say or write.

But when our errors are pointed out to us, we should be honest with ourselves, accept/admit our errors, and make the necessary corrections, and move on. We must not be “lazy” as you correctly said, and mindlessly swallow whatever we heard from other people.

So I would urge you not to be “lazy”. Meet me in Toa Payoh HDB HUB for my lunch treat then, and I will pass you a copy of that 21/8/06 letter I wrote to MP Seng. I will explain more and you can understand better that what RADM Lui said and wished for in Parliament was correct. Will this be a reasonable suggestion to you, sir?
-

{“shoestring” wrote on Wed, 4th Mar 2009 1:36 pm: Oh Tham Eng said:- “What is wrong in people like RADM Lui Tuck Yew wanting or “insist[ing] that online discourse should be credible?” ”
Credibility of debaters is determined by the audience, not the debaters. RADM Lui Tuck Yew …[he] has no grounds for insisting on his opponents’ credibility, when his own credibility is also scrutinized. Credibility does not come with a name. I has to be built and earned……The audience do not need help to decide on what they want to read. Neither do they need anyone to tell them who is credible or not. They will decide for themselves……instead of lazy brains expecting to be fed with “credible” delicacies specially picked, washed and shipped from the heavenly places.}

i have a opinion about the news report by a ‘new local research paper’ , ST saturdy page A25.

the statistic :

Q: what should the gov do to lighten the financial burden of an ageing society?
Statistics shown: majority of 48.6% feels that Retirement Age should be raised.

I have questions :
1. who compiled this stats?
2. what happens if another person compiles his own stats? lets say me. If i do it, I feel that the stats would be different. to me, to lighten the financial burden for ageing society would be to have a strong and robust retirement plan planned decades ahead for the people. Why need to raise the retirement age when there is already a retirement plan for the people using CPF? Is there any weakness that requires people to change their retirement plan? Why ? singapore only has a tiny population, their retirement should not be a problem. Early planning should not require raising the retirement age, imho. Also, like to raise an awareness :

a. some people are told old people wants to work older past 60 for all sorts of reasons. I think this way of saying is not clear enough. People want to retire and stay active doing things they like like non-salary work like gardening, travelling, social work, arts, karaoke, creative activities, learn new skills and hobbies. 20 years is not long to learn or do all that a person wants to during retirement. what i mean is, I feel that old people do not want to work when old and they can and want to do things that still keep their minds alert and thinking BUT!!!!!! not to earn a living. I feel that some may be mistaken based on what they were told that old people wants to continue working to keep their minds active to prevent alzheimers etc. This can be a sweeping statement in 1 aspect as to keep one’s mind and soul active, it is not a must to continue earning a salary. It should be clearer by saying some old people who cannot save enough or earn enough to support their retirement years NEED to Continue Working for an income to sustain the cost of living and medicals.

So, i hope my message is clear and well understood.

Because we don’t know it’s going to be 2.4 until we see it in hindsight.

We have had a total of 46, 379 comments since TOC so far.

44, 521 comments have either been approved or displayed immediately upon posting.

1, 858 comments have been disallowed.

To see things in perspective:

1, 858 equals to about 74 comments every month which are disallowed. (Taking a figure of 25 months since TOC came online in Dec 1, 2006).

74 comments equals to 2.4 comments disallowed everyday (Taking a 30-day month).

Wrong tactics for the wrong age. This is not the 1960s. Policymakers would do well to heed this reality.

A good government will not try to do this and will not be afraid to have a good system to give in to collective popularity as any collective force / intelligence of an educated & knowledgeable workforce will always reign supreme anytime than a mere few whose very hubris must be regularly checked by the this popular collective force.

Pragmatism may not always be the best solutions. The BIG-STICK won the early days for us. And I am concerned that the hard work of our founding generation is well-preserved for our future generations. The majority of Singaporeans, the most discerning of us know the score. There will always be detractors.

The future is in the hands of our new leaders and its also your responsibilty to protect the legacy of our founding fathers.

There are few well articulated and good articles in the blogsites I’ve been to. A lot of enjoiners especially are infantile and puerile. As such they pose no political or social threats as discerning citizens would not make a second visit on them. Lots of profanity-laced remarks.

But of those bloggers who contravene the law, defile our presidency and/or judiciary I feel it would be responsible of our authorities to rein-in such disrespectful citizens for corrective training. They are also defacing Singapore.

Leading and contemptuous articles are posted to inveigle feeble-minds to their cause whatever they may seem to be, tho I suspect to be mostly politically motivated. Authors of such articles should also be taken to task.

In the main, I feel Singapore is not ready and should not allow bloggers to operate with impunity and postings in blogsphere unfettered even if the authorities have to unleash the laws no matter how unpalatable this may be.

could the system handle choking questions?

y/n ?