19m in 24 hours

I like to refer everyone to this article that came out in the local press.

$19 million in less than 24 hours

The congregation at New Creation Church raised a whopping $19 million for the construction of its new premises at Buona Vista. -myp

Tue, Mar 10, 2009
my paper

THE congregation at New Creation Church raised a whopping $19 million for the construction of its new premises at Buona Vista - in less than 24 hours.

In a show of support, a record number of 22,000 people turned up for services at the Rock Auditorium at Suntec City Mall three weeks ago.

The donations were collected over four services on Feb 15.

In comparison, a month-long charity drive by NTUC Income, Project Love, raised about $375,000.

Following the success of its fund-raiser, the New Creation Church announced the amount it raised to its members on Feb 22. However, when contacted, the church declined to comment.

New Creation Church-goer Angelique Lee, 26, a full-time student, said her donation was a form of thanksgiving and appreciation "for all that God has blessed me with".

'Attending church has helped to transform my life and make me a better person over time,' she explained.

Graduate student Huang Wei Hsuan, 26, who is not a member of the church, felt that part of the funds could be used to "help those who are really in need, instead of being fully used to construct a new building".


'Is it really a good idea to build a new building now? Should the church members be advised to keep more for rainy days?' he asked. But many others who are not from the church were heartened by the congregation's generosity.

'I feel it's incredible that such kindness, empathy and generosity can be shown in such bad economic times,' said Mr Shawn Chin, 24, a civil servant.


-------

Kindness? Empathy?! I really do not know what the heck Mr Shawn Chin is smoking. Does he even have the slightest idea how bad the economic conditions are now? And the church can even have the cheek to channel really valuable money into building a mega-plex complete with gourmet supermarkets and beauty outlets?

And to do it all in the name of God?! I know a lot more ways 500m could be put to better use. Ok, maybe the megaplex is actually Keynesian stimulus in disguise.

Well at least someone spoke up.

Church funds could go towards helping the poor
A reader is urging New Creation to donate the money raised to charity instead of spending millions on an Integrated Hub. -myp

Thu, Mar 12, 2009
my paper

I REFER to the report, "$19million in the kitty in less than 24 hours" (my paper, March 10).

Some people may have forgotten that a church is meant to be a centre of spiritual teaching and worship. It is a place where one can seek calmness and spiritual guidance.

The plan by New Creation Church to build an Integrated Hub with a "gourmet supermarket, restaurants, fashion and beauty outlets" and a 5,000-seat auditorium with "world-class acoustics" appears contrary to the principles of faith preached by churches.

Instead of spending millions of dollars on the complex, how about building a church with an attached world-class library that houses Christian writings, which can be used to spread the word of God?

Alternatively, New Creation could have chosen to build a clinic and offer free consultations to the needy. After all, Christianity is fundamentally about helping the needy. Such a clinic could help hundreds, if not thousands, of needy Singaporeans.

Of what use to Singaporeans, Christian and non-Christian alike, would a new shopping centre be in an already-saturated retail scene?

In the same report, it was stated that NTUC Income's charity drive, Project Love, raised only $375,000, compared to New Creation's $19 million.

I urge New Creation to reconsider its plans and to perhaps donate the money raised for the hub to charity.

Alternatively, the church could use part of the funds to send its members on a religious pilgrimage. They could use this chance to learn more about the religion, bond with each other and perhaps use their new knowledge to help others who are in need of spiritual guidance.

Mr Ong Yong Shun

Asking the Correct Question

I refer to Dr Teo Ho Pin's STForum letter dated November 28th, 2008 .

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_307666.html

The town councils' maintenance of sinking funds is clearly necessary as Dr. Teo spelled out in his letter. Sinking funds help finance major restorative works in the estates among other uses. And I wholly agree that any surpluses in the funds clearly should be invested in appropriate instruments to maximize their use. That the funds suffered losses is unfortunate but I am confident that the town councils did their best to make sure the money is well invested.

However, why sinking funds are needed or how the funds are invested, are not the right questions. The correct question that should be directed to the Town Council is, why do the town councils need to draw more conservancy charges from the residents, when there is enough excess that it could even be used for investment purposes? Or perhaps could the charges be reduced when clearly they are actually producing surpluses?

I am confident that Singaporeans are generally mature and cognizant of the need to maintain reserves, and that these investment losses are unfortunate. However, the level of the reserves is the real question.

The Poor in Singapore

This is really a great video.
Sobering.

In our pursuit for that elusive GDP growth figure, who have we left behind?

Foreign Immigrants

i know this topic has been beaten to death in recent days by the local press but let me wade in a little.

specifically lets talk about Singapore's table tennis team. And the local reaction to their silver medal winning effort.

make no mistake, Singapore IS a country of immigrants. But of course. So is China actually, for the Chinese are migrants from Ethiopia too. Some 325,000 years ago of course. Obviously I recognize that immigration has been a trend, and most nations are formed by that. foreign talents help supplement the existing population and enhances its capabilities. thats fine.

But i think there is a huge difference between supplementing talent, and whole sale import of players! The ENTIRE team in Singapore is made up of Chinese talents specifically picked to only play table tennis. That is bordering on ridicule.

I also recognize too that many other countries are also embracing foreign talents in sports. there is a difference though, between specifically INCENTIVIZING foreign talents to join a country using monetary rewards, versus the athlete CHOOSING to defect or migrate a nation on his / her free will without any incentives. THAT, is a big big difference.

What I find objectionable to Singapore's intentions, is that the authorities deliberately went out to get Chinese players by paying them extra money / incentives etc. I embrace Ronald Susilo as although he is foreign born, he did not come here due to badminton but our system helped him reach his potential. Ditto for Tao Li.

But these Chinese table tennis players? Its not about their identity card colours, its about their intentions.

Regret

This is a really excellent post from Mr Wang in his blog http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com

Do read it. Sobering.

http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2008/07/your-career-and-other-miscellaneous.html

My friend and I were just remarking the other day, that probably what we should have done, was to do badly in our A levels, and end up in Business Admin course in NUS. We would probably be Citibank bankers now, driving Alfa Romeos.

Scholarship Bond 2

There were a lot of interesting emails between my friend and I on this topic.
I think there are a couple of points though, I like to make clear about my views.

I will put it on record here that personally, I do not agree with bonded scholarships. I do recognize that scholarships represent opportunities, and personally i am grateful for my chance to go abroad for my studies. It gave me dreams, which I am still chasing to this very day. Those 4 years spent abroad, while not necessarily the absolute "best" years of my life, they were definitely the most important to me.

For my undergraduate years, I took a government scholarship and in return, I was bonded to work with the body for a number of years. For my Masters, I accepted a bond free fellowship from the university. After my Masters, I came back to Singapore to work for a number of years, before breaking my bond and going on to work for a new venture capital group in Singapore.

The experience of receiving a free education at my Masters institution, left a very deep impression on me. I was frankly very surprised how much the school went out of its way, to help me pay for the tuition and bills. They awarded me a full fellowship, and all these for absolutely no conditions, apart from wishing me the best and wanting me to do well in my research and studies. They could very easily have taken another student in my place who could afford to pay for his/her education, but they told me not to drop my place when I told them I could not afford the school fees. And I am not even American!

This contrasts so starkly against what I received for my undergraduate scholarship, which came preloaded with a whole lot of conditions. I am not necessarily saying that one is better than the other, but I cannot but help getting this impression, that my Masters institution is far more interested in developing me as a talent, than my undergraduate scholarship board, which seems far more interested in just retaining me as a future employee for them. While the intentions of my Masters instituation may not be entirely altruistic (they may really like to just have the best students as it may help improve the instition's standings), its arguably far more altruistic than my scholarship board. There is this implicit trust that they gave me, that is wholly absent in the case with the scholarship board.

It is this stark comparison, that ultimately led to my rejection that there is any semblance of morality being attached to a bonded scholarship. Ultimately, there is only contractual integrity here. The intentions of the scholarship board is devoid of altruism, but geared entirely towards selfish intentions of empowering its own organization. If its not altruistic, then there can be little more I should honour apart from the contractual paper.

Ultimately I am not criticizing one entity over another. But on a very personal level, the gratitude I have for my Masters institution far far outweighs that I have for my scholarship board.

Scholarship Bond

My friend and I are having this "row" about whether its right for a scholar to break his/her bond. We have often argued about this, he is always of the view that its wrong to break the bond, because its a promise. My arguement is that a scholarship contract is no different from an employment contract.

My views:
1) the organization did not give the scholarship for charity / reward sake. They did it for selfish reasons, no less selfish than the reasons leading to any scholar choosing to break their bond. They simply want to retain talent!!

2) Treat both sides equally, then one can see that what is there, is just a simple piece of legal paper. There is no servitude to the organization the scholar did not honour, or gratitude that he/she has ignored.

3) A common argument is that by breaking the bond, the person is denying another person who may want the scholarship, the opportunity. However, is this any different in a normal job situation? A person in applying for a job and getting the job, did he also not deny some other people of that job? so does that mean one can never leave the job? Get serious, opportunitiy costs exist in ALL situations.

4) Lets look at the similarities between an employment contract and a scholarship contract.
Employment contract
in the contract, its stated one will serve XXX Corp faithfully etc.
one's pay is xxxx subject to revision
and should one choose to leave, u must serve 1 month's notice or pay 1 month's pay.
words along that line.

Scholarship contract.
one will study at here and there and uphold the scholarship's name etc. after studies one is bonded to work in xxx for xx years.
the stipend is xxxx, scholarship board will pay for tuition
should one choose to leave the scholarship board, liable to pay xxx in damages.

its written in pretty much exactly the same fashion.

its advertised in exactly the same fashion. put an ad in the newspaper, people apply for it, go interview. some get it, some don't.

My friend's views:
He basically recognizes there are similarities but he points to the moral obligations. His main point is that the moral obligation arises because the scholarship body paid for one's education which is a further stepping stone for onein life. companies don't, plain and simple.

My response to this:
Many companies send their employees for training too, which could really be career extending skill like valuation, advance job knowledge etc. Does this mean that these employees can never leave the organization? Or should one fall back again to the contract at hand?

Ultimately morals are relative, but contracts are not. I find it highly offensive when one claims that scholars who choose to break their bonds did not honour their promise. They did. They paid up the liabilities stated clearly on their contracts, and left.

Do not place the scholarship bodies on a higher moral pedestal than the scholars. If they like to claim that higher ground, then there should not even have been a legal contract to begin with.

I like to hear views from my readers. Thanks.

Rome

I am watching or should I say re-watching the HBO series, Rome.

One of the characters said this of the problems in ancient Rome.

"The plebians (common Roman people) are angry. The noble men are making all the money and the slaves (enslaved foreigners) are taking all the jobs."

Hmmm....

Dangerous to allow ambiguity in legal system

I had sent this letter to the Straits Time Forum, dated 25th October 2007.

-------------

I applaud the Government and especially PM Lee, for its open-ness in engaging the public in the ongoing repeal 377a debate. It shows how far our civic society has progressed, and makes me proud of our Nation's strong democratic process.

However, regardless of the arguements either for or against repealing 377a, the ambiguity that is left outstanding, is necessarily dangerous and needs resolution.

Singapore's reputation has been built upon a legal system that is absolute, firm, and most importantly, clear. This is a strength of Singapore, and has contributed much to our success. In issues like Michael Fay and even chewing gum, we have built an international reputation for a transparent and strong legal system, a system where ambiguity has no place. For these same reasons, the Singaporean citizen is guaranteed safety within the legal system.

The introduction of ambiguity into the system may forseeably result in citizens misinterpreting the law. But more frightening, is the thought that a citizen may no longer feel safe within the thickets of the law, for he can no longer be sure which law will be enforced, and which will not be.

Borrowing a phrase from Robert Bolt's famous play "A Man for All Seasons", let us keep the law as a causeway upon which, so long as he keeps to it, a citizen may walk safely.

You know what really grinds my gears?

Rainy Singapore.

Ok, more precisely, rain when i want to play tennis.

Pissed as anything, had been looking forward to my lesson this morning.
Damn.

EARTHQUAKE!!!!

scary!!!! massive 7.9 richter scale earthquake smashes Indonesia and singapore really felt it.
i am still in my office building only 2 stories tall, and the whole building was swaying.
lasted at least 2-3 minutes.

The Hamadrayas Baboons

so i went down to the singapore zoo over the weekend.

nothing much has changed in the zoo since i last went there 3-4 years ago. there is currently a new exhibit on white tigers, which is pretty standard, lazy tigers sleeping on a rock kinda thing, but its not too bad. i am very proud of the Singapore Zoo, i think its the best in the world, absolutely no contest.

the highlight of the singapore zoo though, has to be the Hamadrayas Baboons exhibit. its spectacular, with more than 7 troops, each troop consisting of a dominant male, with about 3-4 females, 2-3 immature males, and 3-4 youngs. Observing the social dynamics is absolutely spectacular. i am posting some pictures here for everyone to see. Venga, you would be interested to know, that new DNA studies show that all the varieties of baboons, olive, black, hamadrayas etc. are all just races of baboons, not different species.

Here we see part of a troop. Notice in the background a female with a gigantic distended, swollen backside? That means she's in heat. some monkey's gonna get lucky soon... Also notice the huge male in the middle. These baboons are about 2/3 the size of a human, with canines as long as a leopard. don't mess with them.

Here we see an example of the social dynamics. You can see the mother attending to her 2 young, one which is probably 1-2 years old, and another which is probably around 3 months old. They are sharing food, the mothers are extremely attendant, the behaviours are shockingly human like. Notice the young male in the background, haha.

Ah, the great circle of life. There was a premature birth that morning we went to the zoo. We saw the mother fiercely holding on to the lifeless ragdoll like figure of her baby. We spoke to the zookeeper, the keeper said that its too dangerous now for them to move in to remove the baby. The entire troop is still very protective of their young and probably in grief.

It was a great experience. these baboons are worth the 22 dollars admission fees alone. watching them, i can't help but think how little difference there is between us humans and animals. its a humbling thought.

Cause or Effect?

i know this has been posted on Mr Brown show for some time already.
but i am posting this here again, i think its very thought provoking.

i am not claiming Taiwan is better than Singapore or vice versa. i think that's not the point here, nor were the commentators talking about that in the clip too. the whole thesis really is, do we care more about the cause or the effect?

i think it would be hard to argue that singapore is a worse place to live in than taiwan. our infrastructure, tax, yada yada, are all superior to taiwan, whatever measures one chooses. but how was this achieved?

the commentators mentioned a very poignant point. much of what singapore achieved was due to superior and absolute leadership. once this leadership passes on, can singapore maintain its achievements?

disgusting

so yesterday i called tay up and we agreed to go play table tennis. i have a renewed interest in the game, and tay had kindly agreed to train me. we decided to go to Macpherson Community Center to play. we had been playing there for several years already, until i moved abroad for my studies. we had very much appreciated the free facilities there, as Community Centers' should be.

when we got there, we did not find any table. a "quick" check (well, more like a slow check... that woman made us wait for almost 15 minutes) with the staff later, it appeared that one can NO LONGER play table tennis in the Community Center except only on Saturdays, 10 am-12 pm, a pathetic and paltry 2 hours. the sports hall where the table tennis table was, is now used exclusively for FEE PAYING badminton players. the table has been removed completely, stored somewhere.

and then it all sinks in. tay had called Macpherson Community Center up earlier that morning, and checked if there was still a table there for us to play. the staff told us yes, the table was available. but he actually had the cheek to discourage us from playing because, get this, "badminton players might be interrupted by the table tennis players". tay had not thought much of it then.

this is blatant profit seeking behaviour! because badminton courts require booking fees, the Community Center gives priority to the badminton players! and the thing is, its not as if the table tennis table occupy the same space as the badminton courts. they are in the same hall, but the table tennis table was at an isolated corner of the hall. instead of thinking logically, which is to put a simple barrier around that corner, they choose to ban play completely. and why? because they can derive revenue from badminton. and why waste precious revenue on buying the barriers? they probably cost a princely 50 dollars or so.

granted badminton as a recreational sport is more popular than table tennis, but i am questioning the fundamental reasoning here. i love badminton very much too, don't get me wrong. however the reasons behind removing the table tennis table completely are highly dubious.

and the story does not end here. we went to 2 more Community Centers and both of them had removed the tables in favour of badminton. in Geyland Serai Community Center, the table tennis players had to, get this, buy their own tables and place it in an isolated room upstairs, sharing the room with the aikido classes. and its not open to public. in Eunos, there were no tables altogether for the public! in the end, at Eunos, somehow we found a table located in the middle of no where. indignant, we just dragged the table out and played table tennis defiantly outside the main office. the venue was horrid, the lighting absent but we had to make a statement.

Table tennis has been the only sport that has brought some measure of international success to Singapore. i dare say, even more so than sailing. li jiawei and company had achieved true international success. yet if our community centers are not willing to support the sport among the masses, our future success will be just that --> a visage of imported, naturalized foreign players.

we are not asking for much. just a simple table at an isolated corner, is that too much? exercise some common sense please, our Community Centers. don't let the concept of profit and self sustaining revenues cloud the greater good.

On Yee Cher and super 9 year olds...

so the blokes and i have made plenty of jokes about this super overgrown 9 year old kid called Yee Cher in Singapore who is setting all sorts of age-group records in sprinting. honestly, he looks like he is 14. i mean what the hell, he's 1.6m tall. i think i was at best 1.2m when i was 9?

anyway, yee cher resulted in plenty of news coverage. check some of these out. there were so many cynics out there doubting his age (apparently he was born in cambodia... hmmm... haha, dubious), that MOE had to issue a statement that yes, he indeed is 9 years old. its almost laughable. i wanted to put up pictures of him running, so you can see how he stands at least a head taller than his rivals but i couldn't find one thats not copyrighted... anyway trust me, its ridiculous.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_139731.html
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_140492.html

anyway, i think he's a boy who just happens to reach puberty way earlier than his peers, thereby enjoying this phase where he could literally overpower them. personally, my puberty arrived really late, and hence during my secondary school days, i was always overpowered in every damn sport by anybody. its ridiculous. i couldn't even do a single pullup until i was in J1 (i then did 6 immediately that year, cheered on by the class girls. :) )

and those boys that reached puberty earlier, they DOMINATED every sport. they aren't even really talented in those sports. but by virtue of the fact that they reached puberty earlier, they were given a chance to play those sports for the school.

(Note: my secondary school has a very damning policy of admitting students into the school's sports teams only if they deem them "talented" enough. the talent test which is administered in secondary 1 as soon as the student joins the school, is a stupid psychomotor test with no theoretical nor experimental basis that honestly disadvantages the boys who are relatively late in their development.)

Its quite clear the school decided on this system, to ensure that the school wins interschool events. but is that the point really? personally i think its highly demoralizing to many young boys who had the interest in sports (for example, i was and still am very interested in tennis), but because of factors totally outside their control, they were never given the chance by the school. In the end, these boys ended up either in music clubs or visual arts nonsense, and were further ostracized by the school population.

bloody hell.

ok on a brighter note, check this video out. Rhaine Davis is a young, normal looking 9 year old British kid, who has been offered a stint at Manchester United's football academy after his father sent in this video. this, is what i call talent, not pitiutary gland overdrive.

Profitability?

Taking a poll here among my readers, paltry few there may be:

Do you think public transport companies should aim for profitability or public good?

And don't give me the gigg style answer of "both are equally important".

Flabbergasted

so get this, SBS has just applied to the Public Transport Council for a fare increase.
wow.

http://www.sbstransit.com.sg/press/2007-08-01-02-S.aspx

so we get a fare increase and double the frequency?

right. in my dreams.

"Why didn't the Garmen do this?"

I caught myself complaining about the government with regards to the poor standards of public transport.

Was that fair? Actually on hindsight, probably not. The companies run quite autonomously I believe, from the government. Of course I am certain the government is directly involved but thats not my point...

My point is, why do we Singaporeans always instinctively blame the government for every little thing? (I find myself writing more and more in the style of Carrie Bradshaw... haha)

Actually I think its a chicken and egg problem. Our government has taken credit (justifiably I must add) for a lot of the good things that have taken place in Singapore. And they have been quite unshamedly proud of their work.

As a result, we Singaporeans have been brought up to believe that our government is responsible for our lot and fate. And that I believe, is the reason why Singaporeans always blame the government first.

Still on buses...

maybe someone is reading my blog, haha.
but today's news reported that Singapore has set up this committee to look into improving the quality of our bus system.
and bus companies would be fined apparently if they don't make a certain standard.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_144398.html

cool! but thats just half the problem right? the other major problem is singaporean's lousy attitude and complete lack of empathy for fellow passengers... and human beings for that matter.

How to solve the bus problem

easiest way which i have suggested many times, is to just move the bloody door to the end of the bus! that way, passengers would be forced to move in!