Tuesday, November 14, 2017

No one can determine baby's gender: Boy is girl and girl is boy

A survey on 4,573 people in USA yield startling results.

Democrats with a bachelor’s degree or more education are more likely than other Democrats to say a person’s gender can be different from the sex they were assigned at birth. About three-quarters (77%) of Democrats with a bachelor’s degree or more say this, compared with 60% of Democrats with some college and 57% of those with a high school diploma or less. No such divide exists among Republicans.

Overall, 64% of Democrats believe that a man and woman can have a different sex at birth.

Asking boy to put on pants, and not going to girl's toilet are discrimination

Nikki, 2nd from left

These days, any dissent against perverts and crackpot is discrimination.

In California, a transgender 8-year-old girl Nikki and her parents are suing her former Orange County private school for $10,000, for preventing her from expressing her gender identity.

The major sins of the school are insisting that Nikki wear the boy’s uniform. The school also forbid her using female bathroom.

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Did Singapore just offered Changi Naval Base to PLAN (China Navy)?

Straits Times reported on Minister Chan Chun Sing's remark.

It is the reason Singapore chose to open Changi Naval Base to the Americans and the Chinese - to add value to its relations with the two powers, he said.

Bringing Chinese military into Singapore is critical for our survival

The Straits of Malacca choke point is a major concern for China, especially if this waterway is being controlled by the US Navy, housed in Changi Naval Base. This worry prompts China to develop alternative channels of transport, which is inevitably harm Singapore position as a hub. Some major Chinese initiative are

1. Revival of Silk Road
2. China–Pakistan Economic Corridor
3. Kra Cannal

Offering China Naval Base to PLAN will assuage China's concern.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Singapore Airlines Group now bigger than Cathay Pacific in terms of passenger-km

On June 2017, Singapore Airlines Group (including Scoot and Silkair) has higher passenger-km than Cathay Pacific Group (including Dragon air) for the first time in history. SIA Group RPK stands at 10,699 millions compared to 10,487 millions of Cathay Pacific Group.

However, things are not rosy for Singapore Airlines. Her budget arm Scoot (including Tigerair) is a laggard compared to Malaysia's Airasia and Indonesia Lionair.

The premium Singapore Airlines now faces stiff competition from Airlines from China. Drawing from a large population pool, the Airlines from China have far more good looking girls, who are far more gentle their the westernized Singaporean ladies.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Who won 1987 Sino-Indian War, and who was the aggressor?

The expert in India geopolitics Neville Maxwell, has wrote that India was invading China in 1987. The full scale war did not broke out after USA mediation. India withdrew her army later after having a hard time in supplying them.

India is the earth most atrocious country, invading, annexing and terrorizing all her neighbors since independence.

Border war was narrowly averted in 1987 when a belligerent Indian Army commander, General Krishnaswamy Sundarj, having been foiled in his plan to render Pakistan a “broken-back state”, turned his attention to the China border. He massively reinforced positions there and in deliberate provocation pushed numerous posts across the established McMahon line of actual control. China reacted with matching troop concentrations and air force inductions, and warned India to desist from its aggressions, which, in the late summer of 1987, it did, probably under US pressure.

The heat went out of the confrontation but the Indian Army was left in a grossly unbalanced situation, with great troop concentrations beyond normal supply reach. That predicament induced a new Indian government, under Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, to negotiate in 1993 India’s one and only border agreement with the PRC: jointly to observe the line of actual control (LAC) and to reduce force levels to a practical minimum. Later, developments fell far short of what the treaty required.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Minister Boon Wan says "Government subsidizing public transport unsustainable" : Yet another lies

The lies of Boon Wan

CNA reported as below.

While the Government will continue to inject heavy subsidies into the public transport system, the current model of taxpayers bearing more of the fiscal burden is not sustainable, said Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan in Parliament on Wednesday (Mar 8). 

Speaking at his ministry’s Committee of Supply debate, Mr Khaw stressed on the need to strike a “fair balance” in the proportion of transport costs that will be borne by commuters, taxpayers and operators. 

Amid the push for a "car-lite" Singapore by 2030, Mr Khaw noted that the significant improvements to the country’s public transport network require high capital investments and will incur higher operating costs. 

The Government is also topping up a “huge deficit” under the new Bus Contracting Model, which states that it is now responsible for buying and replacing buses.
“We pay bus operators a fee to run the bus services. Although fare revenue goes to the Government, it is not enough to cover operating costs,” Mr Khaw said. Over the next five years, the Government expects to subsidise public bus services by nearly S$4 billion, he added. 

Likewise under the transition to the New Rail Financing Framework, the Government expects to spend S$4 billion over the next five years. This excludes the S$20 billion that will be spent to build new public transport infrastructure, according to the Transport Minister. 

As costs rise over the years, Mr Khaw said fares have not kept up and taxpayers have had to subsidise more and more of these operating costs.
“This is clearly not sustainable,” he said. “We must ensure that the fiscal burden does not become too excessive for taxpayers.”

Singaporeans are subsidizing the government on public transport instead

The main reason PAP built MRT can be found in "A Mandarin and the Making of Public Policy", the memoir of elite civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow. Ngiam stated that MRT system, by providing easy access to suburban Singapore, would in itself raise property value... The increased value of properties...to yield the $5 billion required to build the first MRT east-west lines.

In reality, while public transport is almost a money losing venture by itself, but elites and government have made scandalous profit by peddling adjacent property, more than enough to cover the infrastructure and operating cost.

Without MRT to the CBD, land there would not have fetch the astronomical value.

New MRT planning benefits businesses and elites, harms Singaporeans

Recently, PAP mooted building two express MRT network bypassing all or most stations. The O&D are CBD to Changi Airport, running the Thomson-East Coast Line, and future high speed rail station to Changi Airport, on the Cross Island Line. This certainly provides convenience to business, expat, or transit visitors.

PAP is also considering axing, the existing MRT link between Singapore Expo and Changi Airport, on the East West Line, which is the main artery for peasant commuters.

Meanwhile, PAP does not even spare a thought that on the need of express train for Singaporeans domiciled in the East, to places like Tuas or NTU for the East West Line. Much man-hours are wasted on the MRT, that need to stop on all stations.

Where is our monies?

Having raking in billions in land sales from us, thanks to the asset enhancement bring forth by constructing MRT, PAP is telling us, Singaporeans are bankrupting the government.

We will have enough monies for everything if government does thing like cutting back the salaries -- not just the minister, but the runaway remuneration of entire public service, among many others.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Singapore home vacancy rate among world highest: Financialization of housing

Vacancy rate as percentage

Singapore home vacancy is among the highest in developed countries, according to Zerohedge. URA statistic shown that our private property vacancy rate is at 8.4% at 4Q2016. The huge vacancy rate could be due to absentee landlord, or developer not willing to lower prices to sell the property.

Singapore is a special case with substantial government housing, which is bench marked to a certain percentage point lower than private property. But skyrocketed government housing has raided Singaporeans' pension funds, in addition of resulting to one of lowest fertility rate in the planet. The PAP government then blames the citizen for not wanting to procreate and uses this as a  pretext to flood Singapore with foreigners.

Home vacancy rate -- a financial abuse of human rights

The world’s money markets have priced people out of cities, a United Nations independent expert has said, blaming financial markets and speculators for treating housing as a “place to park capital.”

“Housing has lost its social function and is seen instead as a vehicle for wealth and asset growth. It has become a financial commodity, robbed of its connection to community, dignity and the idea of home,” said Leilani Farha, the Special Rapporteur on the right to housing.

“The financial world has essentially operated without any consideration of housing as a human right and States are complicit: they have supported financial markets in a way that has made housing affordable for most residents,” Ms. Farha said.

Total number of houses vacant

Can Singapore private property be lower?

This is equivalent of asking will the rich want to loss their wealth. If the rich do not want to suffer financial losses due to asset depreciation, no way Singaporeans will have reasonable access to private property -- unless there is a financial crisis.

Moreover, when 1% owns roughly 90% all over the world, every single peasant will be priced out of housing without government intervention.

The city of Paris has decided it’s had enough, and implemented a tax in 2015. They didn’t quite get the results they wanted, so they’re now tripling the tax to 60%.

Singapore government certainly has a long way to go, in view of what the French government is doing. Meanwhile, our real estate keep clamoring for more relax regulations of property.