A former secondary school principal has become the first victim of the borderline underaged vice scandal covered here previously, copping nine weeks for the oversight of not checking her identity card, as the judge sternly explained (graciously leaving space open for novel legal opinion when the next sweet young thing uses a fake IC). Never has the Yellow Ribbon Project been more warranted, but then again this sort of thing tends (rightly) to be mostly forgiven in short order, at least if local media personalities are any yardstick.
Slightly annoyed at the ridiculousness of it all, I continued on with my perusal of the news, and came across an admission by no less than the Dalai Lama that he can be tempted by women, whereupon I along with Mr. Ham, who happened to be by my side, subconsciously stroked our chins and nodded meaningfully in unison. Sensible man, that Dalai Lama! (Unlike certain hypocritical religious leaders who shall stay unnamed - though he may in his revelation have outed himself as being not of Singaporean transport ministerialcalibre)
[N.B. But realistically, how much blame should be pegged on our newly-minted Minister for Transport? The seeds were sown long before he took office. And what actually can he do? Fine them peanuts, which will be more than made upfrom public funds anyway? Basically, he is being held responsible for something he realistically has next to no control over, which reflects the crazy state of the portfolio]
Our joint estimation of the Dalai Lama having ratcheted up two notches, I poked about for more by His Holiness, and came acrossanother of his quotes: "...And I also mentioned in case Dalai Lama's incarnation one female comes then must bevery attractive female. So the very reason, you see more influence to others, an ugly female then may not much effective", at which point we slapped our hands simultaneously on the tabletop in unrestrained awe and exclaimed together, he speaks Truth! Has a more enlightened man ever lived?
This has even inspired Mr. Ham to do some reading up on Tibetan Buddhism (though as the Dalai Lama said, don't become a Buddhist, the world doesn't need more Buddhists; do practice compassion, the world needs more compassion. Coming from a man who loves even George Bush [and therefore doubtless the rest of humanity], he really practices what he preaches), which I hope manages to counter Mr. Ham's exploitative Cult Leader tendencies somewhat.
Ten Lines
Well, you tell us that we're wrong
And you tell us not to sing our song
Nothing we can say will make you see
You got a heart of stone
You can never feel
You say "oh I'm not afraid - it can't happen to me"
...
Oh listen to the man in the liquor store
Yelling "Anybody wanna drink before the war?"
"Anybody wanna drink before the war?"
"Anybody wanna drink before the war?"
Wall Of Text
Mr. Ham:*twiddling his paws* You know, after hearing what the Dalai Lama had to say, I think I've been a very bad hamster.
Me: Glad that you realise that. So you're winding up your Cult Leader business?
But, I can lend you my... uh, Esquire Pants' magic monocle.
Me: Baby steps, I see. Fine by me. So what does it do?
Mr. Ham: It allows you to access the little-known dimension located in what most people perceive as whitespace between lines of text. Extremely useful for lawyers, and anybody else, for that matter. Go on, try it out!
...Only about 50 per cent of Singaporeans pay taxes ...a significant part of taxes are paid by foreigners who are easily mobile, and by the better-off ...we rather people keep their money and spend it as they like...
Me: I don't see how much more straightforward it can get.
Mr. Ham: Put on the monocle and take another look lah.
...Only about 50 per cent of Singaporeans pay taxes ...a
We don't consider the regressive GST a tax at all, expect it
significant part of taxes are paid by foreigners who are
Mr. Ham: On this end, your top talents have just plonked US$2.3 billion on a Chinese bank, from an investment bank known for its drive (and ability - let's face it, exercise of morality aside, they are smart) to make profits for itself above all else, barely a fortnight after the Prime Minister of China said that it wields too much power and should be dismantled because it is earning supernormal profits, despite already having been bitten once before. I sure hope, for the sake of your savings, that they know something we don't, or failing that, that fortune favours the bold.
Mr. Ham's simplified guide to the deal as he sees it (N.B. Ball at top left is a countryball) (N.N.B. For those interested in Scandinavian [and to a lesser extent, European] history and culture, have I a comic for you)
Mr. Ham: Heh heh, while I reserve my opinion on how capable your Opposition really is, I have got to say that if they have some good ideas and really care about the people, they had better not express them and hope that the incumbents think of the ideas themselves - because if they do, good luck having the ideas implemented!
moderate the increasing dependence on foreign manpower
employment from six years to ten, to make sure
which has grown by 7.5% per annum over the last two
that over the long term we can still depend on cheap
years.
labour.
Me: I think I'm getting double vision. Still, allowing foreign workers in could be a good thing (perhaps not as much nowadays) overall from a wider view, but should that the main concern of a government? On principle, I wouldn't mind letting lower-income workers earn relatively more, as economics professor Lim Chong Yah suggested to a split reception.
Mr. Ham: The analysis for a closed economy is not too hard - assuming no immediate rise in productivity, a rise in pay at lower levels matched with a freeze at the top, would equal a smaller rise below and a corresponding cut above, corrected for inflation; if you think those at the top would support that, even if it should theoretically make nary a dent in their standard of living, you don't know this society. Heck, your main union leaderargues against wage increases! Somebody should tell him that he is supposed to play the good cop, or at least keep quiet and let others shoot the idea down, you know.
Me: But this isn't a closed economy?
Mr. Ham: Well, this means that employers who have built their firms on the backs of S$500 a month labour will have to actually think, which I'm not sure they're particularly good at; as the prof noted (and was mentioned here before too), when you have wages that low, even comparatively unsophisticated technologies like car washes get squeegeed out.
Eye Lines
As it happens, I was thinking of having a pair of sports goggles made while waiting for the next big development, but the website required not only my prescription but also my pupillary distance (P.D.), which couldn't be found in my prescription; I did dig up severalmethods to self-measure it, but far more captivating was the... hostility towards supplying it to customers that I encountered on a forum for opticians.
As far as I could make out, one section is unhappy at (cheaper) online retailers recommending that the P.D. be taken by a professional, with some regarding this as outright thievery of service, and are wary since they (at least in some jurisdictions) are liable for any problems resulting from the measurements; the obvious resolution, which was suggested more than once, was to charge a reasonable fee for the service, which however quite a few of them were extremely reluctant to, citing a need for quality, with some (half-jokingly?) musing over the possibility of giving the P.D. in esoteric units if they were forced to.
One could wonder at this point what formidable measurement this P.D. is. It turns out that it's the distance between the pupils of the eyes. Yes, it can vary by a few millimetres depending on where a person focuses his eyes, and may be slightly different for each eye if the face is not particularly symmetrical, but basically it's the distance between the pupils, which probably doesn't change much if ever for an adult - and if the feckless consumer gets his hands on it, he can bypass the (mostly) trustworthy brick-and-mortar store and place orders with disreputable online retailers for much less!
It does seem that highly-skilled opticians might conscientiously take a raft of other measurements to optimally fit eyewear, but the issue that they appear to be facing is that many consumers are deciding that "much cheaper and good-enough" is preferable to "best but far more expensive"; I can easily imagine how customers, especially those of average facial features and simple prescriptions, might be completely satisfied with a pair for ten bucks or less. Equally understandable is that outrage that opticians, who have spent years getting certified, may feel at being bypassed.
Thing is, this is sadly not new at all - many workers in many once-skilled industries have seen themselves overtaken by cost-saving technology, and generally each time that happens, there's no going back, whether or not the workers resist; the key question is whether the general consumer accepts that the workers have been adequately replaced. I'm not sure if that point has been reached for basic optometry, but with MIT (and probably others) working on automating refractive assessment, and research suggesting that patients can often self-correct (which sort of makes sense, since they are the ones who are going to live with the results - and many people have done quite well with over-the-counter reading glasses, and even donated ones), they might be slightly concerned.
What I can say is that, if a business is counting on withholding a measurement that can be taken with a ruler, a steady hand and a camera/friend (an interesting experiment might be to check how different the results are with top-end pupilometers) to survive, they might want to explore other avenues too - and I must say that the online retailer I ended up ordering from was pretty proactive in double-checking my prescription.
Mr. Ham (2847/2900 seeds): I get it, weak human has bad eyesight and no compensating sense of smell. Tottenham (-1.5) to dominate Blackburn (at 1.80)
FAKEBERT (3063.5/2900 seeds): Thankfully the meetup with law and zy kept me from being able to register my punt on Newcastle (who ended up getting beat 4-0 by Wigan, of all teams). Going safe again with Chelsea to win against Queens Park Rangers (at 1.35)
