Singapore's government claim that they need to import new citizens to ensure population growth and sustain economic growth.
Woah now.
I know that's accepted as some form of truism, and even commentators commented Japan must revise its immigration policy or suffer.
But hey, the first thought that comes to my mind is that - isn't the world getting overpopulated?
Are the growing numbers of human beings consuming too much and too fast the natural resources of the world, be it in the developed countries or less developed countries?
Advances made in the last century has seen a diploma holder being able to do what used to require a university degree.
Can we not look into alternative ways to maintain our standard of living without resorting to the same old method of providing it?
Look at many modern corporations today. Gone are the pools of typists and clerks.
The modern jet passenger aircraft has for decades done away with the flight navigators.
Buses no longer employ conductors selling tickets.
Yes, many jobs still require people, but are we making the best use of the people we already have?
When I see increasing number of foreigners among service staff in stores, supermarkets and F&B outlets, I wonder where are the young Singaporeans working today?
Lo and behold, I see many of them working in the ubiquitous retail shops in just about every neighbourhood and shopping centre ... selling what ... mobile phones with flashing accessories? electronic games?
How many shops selling mobile phones does Singapore really need anyway?
How many times does a person really need to change his handset anyway?
It is a culture of waste, and many of the young Singaporeans are engaged in "economic activities" whose real economic productivity is zero, or even negative.
I am not in favour of a command economy, I just want to highlight that Singapore is doing a lot of wasteful activities, and all these cost money.
On the subject of income-ceiling for HDB flats and high COV - the government can tackle several issues at once by revising the rule so that they consider the income ceiling only for the highest income earner of the household rather than the whole family.
First, it makes more couples eligible to get cheaper flats directly from HDB, cooling the resale market and bring it to saner level.
Second, without heavy mortgage, couples will hopefully be ready to have a family, and one parent to be more ready to stay home longer to take care of the children until they are older. Not only will this help towards better upbringing (hopefully) of the children and less social problem in the future, it will also hopefully reduce demand for foreign labour - less need for domestic maids, less need for infant/childcare centres (which also employ foreigners), maybe less need to eat out.
Will a contracting economy be bad for Singapore? Not necessarily.
It all depends on which part of the economy contracts, and if the population of Singapore contracts even more.
So what if we have a smaller economy if it means Singapore becomes more enjoyable and Singaporeans actually get to enjoy life more?
We have the hi-tech and advancements, they just need to be put into the right place.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Capital Punishment - Amnesty's Strawman arguments
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/010/2007/en/f45ed09c-d3a2-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/act500102007en.html
In opposing the death penalty, isn't Amnesty International showing disrespect for victims of violent crime and their relatives?
In opposing the death penalty, Amnesty International in no way seeks to minimize or condone the crimes for which those sentenced to death were convicted. If it were, then a majority of countries are currently apologists for violent crime, clearly a nonsensical suggestion. As an organization deeply concerned with the victims of human rights abuses, Amnesty International does not seek to belittle the suffering of the families of murder victims, for whom it has the greatest sympathy. However, the finality and cruelty inherent in the death penalty render it incompatible with norms of modern-day, civilized behaviour. It is an inappropriate and unacceptable response to violent crime.
AI claims it does not seek to minimise or condone the crimes, but AI chooses to say nothing about what message it wants to give to the victims.
If it were, then a majority of countries are currently apologists for violent crime, clearly a nonsensical suggestion.
Logical Fallacies here.
First, being lenient on violent criminal does not necessarily one is an apologist for violent crime.
Second, it is a bald assertion without any proof whatsoever that countries which do so much to protect criminals relative to how much they have done to protect the victims before the crimes were commited, and how much they do for the victims after the crimes were commited, must also not be apologists for violent crimes.
Isn't it necessary to execute certain prisoners in order to prevent them from repeating their crimes?
The death penalty as a method of preventing prisoners from re-offending is a blunt tool. By its very nature, the death penalty can only be carried out against a prisoner who is already imprisoned and therefore removed from society. Since that prisoner can no longer commit acts of violence against society, the death penalty is not needed as a method of protection.
Who can guarantee that once imprisoned, these criminals can no longer hurt members of society, both inside the prison and outside the prison?
Even the mere knowledge that the killer of their loved ones is alive while their loved one is gone is hurtful. Killers can still taunt the victims' families - e.g., through letters, or through interviews, exclusives with media.
They can escape. Or they can get paroled.
Will any AI or anti-capital punishment advocate be willing to guarantee with his/her life that the criminal will not hurt anyone else EVER?
Unlike imprisonment, the death penalty entails the risk of judicial errors which can never be corrected. There will always be a risk that some prisoners who are innocent will be executed. The death penalty will not prevent them from repeating a crime which they did not commit in the first place.
Judicial error is a separate issue. It is no more acceptable to allow it in the case of other punishments as it is in the case of capital punishments.
If the country's judiciary is prone to making mistakes in making wrong convictions, that's where the fix should be directed at.
...
In addition experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges.
Again, this is like trying to prescribe a cure for swollen ankle for someone who does not have a swollen ankle but a cut on the head - prescription does not fit the diagnosis.
No one should be wrongfully convicted of whatever crimes just because they do not have money to hire skilled lawyers.
Convictions should be a matter of evidence, not a matter of harshness or prosecutor or judges.
Countries where the rich get off from crimes, be it violent or non-violent, by being able to afford expensive lawyers, while the poor does not get their due rights in the courts, are countries which trample on human rights.
In opposing the death penalty, isn't Amnesty International showing disrespect for victims of violent crime and their relatives?
In opposing the death penalty, Amnesty International in no way seeks to minimize or condone the crimes for which those sentenced to death were convicted. If it were, then a majority of countries are currently apologists for violent crime, clearly a nonsensical suggestion. As an organization deeply concerned with the victims of human rights abuses, Amnesty International does not seek to belittle the suffering of the families of murder victims, for whom it has the greatest sympathy. However, the finality and cruelty inherent in the death penalty render it incompatible with norms of modern-day, civilized behaviour. It is an inappropriate and unacceptable response to violent crime.
AI claims it does not seek to minimise or condone the crimes, but AI chooses to say nothing about what message it wants to give to the victims.
If it were, then a majority of countries are currently apologists for violent crime, clearly a nonsensical suggestion.
Logical Fallacies here.
First, being lenient on violent criminal does not necessarily one is an apologist for violent crime.
Second, it is a bald assertion without any proof whatsoever that countries which do so much to protect criminals relative to how much they have done to protect the victims before the crimes were commited, and how much they do for the victims after the crimes were commited, must also not be apologists for violent crimes.
Isn't it necessary to execute certain prisoners in order to prevent them from repeating their crimes?
The death penalty as a method of preventing prisoners from re-offending is a blunt tool. By its very nature, the death penalty can only be carried out against a prisoner who is already imprisoned and therefore removed from society. Since that prisoner can no longer commit acts of violence against society, the death penalty is not needed as a method of protection.
Who can guarantee that once imprisoned, these criminals can no longer hurt members of society, both inside the prison and outside the prison?
Even the mere knowledge that the killer of their loved ones is alive while their loved one is gone is hurtful. Killers can still taunt the victims' families - e.g., through letters, or through interviews, exclusives with media.
They can escape. Or they can get paroled.
Will any AI or anti-capital punishment advocate be willing to guarantee with his/her life that the criminal will not hurt anyone else EVER?
Unlike imprisonment, the death penalty entails the risk of judicial errors which can never be corrected. There will always be a risk that some prisoners who are innocent will be executed. The death penalty will not prevent them from repeating a crime which they did not commit in the first place.
Judicial error is a separate issue. It is no more acceptable to allow it in the case of other punishments as it is in the case of capital punishments.
If the country's judiciary is prone to making mistakes in making wrong convictions, that's where the fix should be directed at.
...
In addition experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges.
Again, this is like trying to prescribe a cure for swollen ankle for someone who does not have a swollen ankle but a cut on the head - prescription does not fit the diagnosis.
No one should be wrongfully convicted of whatever crimes just because they do not have money to hire skilled lawyers.
Convictions should be a matter of evidence, not a matter of harshness or prosecutor or judges.
Countries where the rich get off from crimes, be it violent or non-violent, by being able to afford expensive lawyers, while the poor does not get their due rights in the courts, are countries which trample on human rights.
Monday, March 8, 2010
You Don't Have To Say You Love Me - Dusty Springfield
You Don't Have To Say You Love Me lyrics
When I said "I needed you",
you said you would always stay.
It wasn't me who changed,
but you,and now you've gone away.
Don't you see that now you've gone,
and I'm left here on my own,
then I have to follow you,
and beg you to come home.
You don't have to say you love me,
just be close at hand.
You don't have to stay forever,
I will understand.
Believe me, believe me,
I can't help but love you,
but believe me, I'll never tie you down.
Left alone with just a memory,
life seems dead and so unreal,
all that's left is loneliness,
there is nothing left to feel.
You don't have to say you love me,
just be close at hand.
You don't have to stay forever,
I will understand.
Believe me, believe me!
You don't have to say you love me,
just be close at hand.
You don't have to stay forever,
I will understand.
Believe me, believe me, believe me!
I only want to be with you - Dusty Springfield
I Only Want to Be With You
(ivor raymonde / mike hawker)
I don’t know what it is that makes me love you so
I only know I never want to let you go
’cause you’ve started something
Oh, can’t you see?
That ever since we met
You’ve had a hold on me
It happens to be true
I only want to be with you
It doesn’t matter where you go or what you do
I want to spend each moment of the day with you
Oh, look what has happened with just one kiss
I never knew that I could be in love like this
It’s crazy but it’s true
I only want to be with you
You stopped and smiled at me
And asked if I’d care to dance
I fell into your open arms
And I didn’t stand a chance
Now listen honey
I just want to be beside you everywhere
As long as we’re together, honey, I don’t care
’cause you’ve started something
Oh, can’t you see?
That ever since we met
You’ve had a hold on me
No matter what you do
I only want to be with you
Oh, oh, you stopped and you smiled at me
And asked if I’d care to dance
I fell into your open arms
And I didn’t stand a chance
Now hear me tell you
I just want to be beside you everywhere
As long as we’re together, honey, I don’t care
’cause you’ve started something
Oh, can’t you see?
That ever since we met
You’ve had a hold on me
No matter what you do
I only want to be with you
I said no matter, no matter what you do
I only want to be with you
Wishin' and Hopin' - Dusty Springfield
Wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin'
Plannin' and dreaming each night of his charms
That won't get you into his arms
So if you're lookin' to find love you can share
All you gotta do is
Hold him and kiss him and love him
And show him that you care
Show him that you care just for him
And do the things he likes to do
Wear your hair just for him, 'cause
You won't get him
Thinkin' and a-prayin'
Wishin' and a-hopin'
Just wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin'
Plannin' and dreamin' his kiss is the start
That won't get you into his heart
So if you're thinkin' heartbreak
True love is
All you gotta do is
Hold him and kiss him and squeeze him and love him
Yeah, just do it and after you do, you will be his
(You gotta)
Show him that you care just for him
Do the things he likes to do
Wear your hair just for him, 'cause
You won't get him
Thinkin' and a-prayin'
Wishin' and a-hopin'
Just wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin'
Plannin' and dreamin' his kiss is the start
That won't get you into his heart
So if you're thinkin' heartbreak
True love is
All you gotta do is
Hold him and kiss him and squeeze him and love him
Yeah, just do it and after you do, you will be his
You will be his
You will be his
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)