DAVID BLAINE SPOOFS

Shit they are damn funny. Part 1, 2, 3 are better =)

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Special


Law & Investment

Korean Hostage Drama

Hostages’ families face agonising wait
Korean hostages freed by Taleban return home
Shock and anguish in South Korea

Taleban had kidnapped foreigners in Afghanistan to demand troop-pullouts yet again. Such issues had been in the spotlight ever since the US intervention in the affairs of the Middle East states. However, the Korean government is now doing everything possible to negotiate its way out of the biggest hostage crisis in Afghanistan. Unfortunately for the South Koreans, most governments with troops on the ground are now against such hostage deals.

Now that the dilemma has been resolved successfully, I could not help but to question: Was it really wise for 23 Christian evangelists, including 18 women, to be in Afghanistan, a devoutly Muslim country in turmoil? Was it really that clever to drive through the Kabul-Kandahar highway, one of the most dangerous roads in the country, deep into Taleban-controlled areas?

Although it is claimed that the volunteers are there for purely humanitarian work to help the people in Afghanistan, the Muslim-extremists who detested Christianity apparently did not think so. The volunteers were there to help their people, so why couldn’t the extremists tolerate them? They were not soldiers, but people who could offer much needed help and medical aid for the Afghans. The Taleban have completely no morality.

In my opinion, it was indeed foolish of the Church Group to venture deep into a territory that is controlled by Muslim-Extremists that had deep hatred for other religions, especially during times where it was extremely unfavourable for foreigners. It was a huge risk that they had taken and ultimately they had paid a hefty price for their good intention.

It has also come to my knowledge that this is just part of a growing trend for Christian missions to venture out overseas, often to war-torn and politically-unstable countries in the Middle-East. The South Koreans had regarded such missions with pride and is viewed as a prestige by Churches. It is claimed that the volunteers do not put on a religious label, but such good intentions can be easily misunderstood by the Muslim Extremists.

“Evangelising the world is a Biblical mandate. We can review our methods to make it safer for our missionaries but we cannot stop sharing the Gospel.”

On the other hand, the Taleban is a dangerous Muslim extremists group that had shown resistance to US forces. However, it is not too difficult to understand their situation. Their lands have been taken control of and country invaded by the US, and due to their much inferior weapons, such hostage threats are the only means of resistance. Taleban leaders have also expressed that such method was “a very successful policy” and had urged fighters to kidnap whatever foreigners they can find.

As such, this is the background with which the world must deal in. Hostages are a weak spot that have been exploited by Muslim extremists and they will continue to do so. A nation’s first priority must be to recover its citizens, but an equally important duty is to prevent future hostage attempts. And this must mean giving in as little as possible to the Taleban. A huge sacrifice had to be made for the sake of a less troubled future.

In conclusion, although people have a right to expect the protection of their government, they should also have a moral duty not to take such pointless, huge risks. And if citizens do not recognise this obligation, then governments should enforce it.

-Finance and Law-

Safety on Lorries

13 workers flung out of crash lorry; one dead
Extra safety features on vehicles suggested

The tragedy in which 13 workers were flung out of a crash lorry, killing one of them, had once again brought safety of workers on lorries into the spotlight. Since 2001, 25 foreign workers have been hurt or killed in similar incidents. Unless action is taken to safeguard these lives, history will repeat itself.

Personally, I have seen lorries carrying construction workers with almost no shelter and protection at all. Below are photos I have taken of such ill conditions, workers having squeeze into a tiny space on a pick-up and even in a construction vehicle.

These are just incidents waiting to happen, and something inside me just says “we are sorry”. Thinking of it, we actually owe it to those foreign workers who build our infrastructure and help in many businesses which require onsite physical labor, to ensure to their safety. Their immense contribution to the nation certainly did not deserve such ill treatment. Singapore would not be what she is today without them.

The foreign workers have to leave their homes to work here, leaving behind their beloved families, just to led a better life and feed their family abroad with whatever earnings they make. In my opinion, their lives are certainly not less precious than ours. They too, are sons, brothers, and fathers to someone, who wish them well and await their safe return.

“It is unnecessary for someone to leave his home with aspirations of making a living here, only to die on our roads.”

Let’s compare the local scenario with that of Dubai. Dubai is a city undergoing fast-paced development, with workers deployed on construction projects all around. Locals were stunned by the care displayed to workers: They are transported in well-maintained, air-conditioned buses. So why couldn’t we, a hardworking, responsible and compassionate society treat foreign workers as equals, at least on the roads? Why the double standards with regards to safety of foreign workers?

The Land Transport Authority in 2003 had laid down rules specifying the number of workers who can ride on the backs of pick-up trucks and lorries, as well as imposing speed limits and how high off the ground passengers can be seated. However, I believe that much more could be done. I believe that Lorries should be fitted with a canopy and higher railings, to give more protection to the workers in case of accidents and from the elements as well. Drivers and workers should also be educated on road safety. All these little changes could save lives.

It would be nice to provide workers with comfortable buses. Although it would mean extra costs for the employers, what are these costs compared to the safety of their workers and ultimately their reputation? Foreign workers are humans too, and should be treated like humans, thus simple areas like safety should not be neglected.

In the following years, more foreign workers are getting involved in numerous local developments. Thus, it is really important that the authorities take action to prevent such tragedies and remove this glaring spot in upholding the nation’s reputation as a compassionate society.

-Finance and Law-

Chat-rooms Predators: Are we safe?

You’re 13? What’s your bust size?
Not so easy for cops to act / Advice for young girls on chatrooms
School fires coach who tried to hook up with ‘13-year-old’


One man’s opening line was, “Want sex and quick cash?”
“I treat you everything tomorrow, but you have to let me feel feel you.” another promised.
Another guy wanted to know how short her school skirt was.

Such was the situation in a local Internet relay chat room (IRC). Cheryl Tan poses as a 13-year-old schoolgirl and gets one indecent proposal after another, within minutes of entering an Internet chat room. These men are worried that, under the law, it is illegal to have sex with a girl under the age of 16; the lewd offers still came thick and fast.

The punishment for statutory rape is severe – the culprit will be jailed at least eight years and given a minimum 12 strokes of the cane. Despite this, cases of men prowling IRCs and luring young girls into meeting them for sex are becoming more rampant over the last six years. Last year, the police received 217 reports of men who had sex with underage girls, almost double the 114 cases in 2001.

Despite the gravity of the issue, some girls are not all so innocent. Many crave the attention these men lavish. “They find it fun to have men go ga-ga over their photos,” said Psychiatrist Brian Yeo. Some of the girls might just want to enjoy the material benefits and luxury that those men often shower them with. These girls just do not respect their body, and think about their future. Not much could be done to change their mentality; the pleas just fell on deaf ears.

On the other hand, through the perspective of these sexual predators, Dr. Yeo said men who target young girls do so to “feel in control”. He said they get a “thrill” and consider it a “conquest” when a young girl gives in to their request. Psychologist Daniel Koh added that because the young girls are sexually inexperienced, these men think they are “easier to please”.

In addition, the law is currently making it difficult for the police to act against men who just ask young girls to meet them, even though the men may have the intention of having sex with them. Criminal lawyer Sunil Sudheesan said that just asking a teenager out would only qualify as being “part of the preparation” and not a “substantial step” towards an attempted crime. He added that proving the intent to have sex with the girl “is usually quite difficult at this stage unless there is concrete evidence (by catching him in the act of sexual activity with the girl)”

The apparent gap in the law is perhaps one of the main reasons behind the audacity of those paedophiles. Apparently, they feel that they could get away with their crime very easily. They might, but not for long, as the laws will be toughened soon to deal with such paedophiles.

As male teenagers, the best we could do is to advice and warn our friends not to meet strangers whom they talked to online.

-Finance and Law-

Anti-Smoking Ads On Television: What's the concern?

Why put graphic anti-smoking ad on TV?

Don’t shield kids from shocking anti-smoking ads, say some

Anti-cig ad too scary? If it works, it’s worth it

Effective but disturbing anti-smoking ad to run after 8pm

The Health Promotion Board has taken the anti-smoking campaign to yet another level. Not long ago, the vivid anti-smoking campaign by the Health Promotion Board (HPB) entered the limelight for its “shocking images” of a woman stricken with oral cancer. The HPB’s advertisement was rescheduled to be aired after 8pm and prefaced it with a warning, following a public outcry fuelled by fears of the ad’s effect on children.

Firstly, I feel that the main intention of the advertisements was to engrave in the impressionable young minds the shocking consequences of smoking, and it will forever remain a strong and subconscious deterrent to even touch a cigarette. It may be a little naïve, but in my opinion, the HPB’s effort is commendable.

It was also reported that one member of the public had complained that her child was so traumatised by the commercial that she had a nightmare that night, waking up and screaming for her daddy. If this was the case, then I feel that the message has been delivered effectively. However frightened they may be feeling now, I believe that many years down the road, those children who have seen the ad will thank the HPB for the vivid images that appeared in their nightmares and kept them from smoking.

Other members of the public also criticized the timing of the advertisement. Citizens have been complaining of losing their appetite after watching the advertisement. I had a similar experience as well; it was really not nice for an advertisement to ruin my meal. Thankfully, the HPB has solved our problems by rescheduling it to after dinner time.

However, looking from another perspective, the use of shock tactics to scare children into not smoking is rather flawed. Firstly, children would not understand why smoking is bad. It would be more meaningful and effective to educate them about how the substances in cigarette smoke affect the body too, rather than just using superficial shock tactics. Also, the effects vary among children, some children may be more susceptible and negatively-receptive to such scares; the permanent psychological harm to a child might not be obvious to the parents, leaving the child to live on with such harmful scars. Likewise, people do get disgusted at such images. It is simply revolting to watch shocking ads at any time.

In conclusion, while shock tactics are useful, a clear line should be drawn regarding how shock tactics may be used, as they do offend a significant number of people. Furthermore, it is near impossible to change the habit of adult smokers, who are unperturbed by the even more grotesque pictures on cigarette packs. Wouldn’t the public also be numb to such tactics after a while?

In my opinion, the main intention is to deter the young from smoking and seizing the time when their minds are young to change their mindset about smoking, and not so much of deterring adult smokers. This will hopefully stop a new generation of adult smokers from appearing.

-Finance and Law-

"Triple Whammy" attacks on Singapore: What have we done wrong?

2 articles titled “What’s behind ‘triple whammy’ attacks on S’pore?” by Warren Fernandez and "Let's all bash Singapore" highlighted 3 instances of bad relations with our neighbours all of a sudden.

1) Thailand:

Thailand had accused Singapore spying on Thai leaders through phone lines after a controversial purchase of Shin Corp by Tamasek Holdings. It was followed by the controversial Asean Football Championship finals, in which the Thais staged a 15-min walkout.

2) Malaysia:

Johor’s leaders claimed that Singapore’s land reclamation at Pulau Tekong had caused massive floods there. However, Malaysian Environmental Minister later state that it was caused by high rainfall and excessive logging.

3) Indonesia:

Indonesian authorities announced a sudden blanket ban on sand exports to Singapore, much to the dismay of Singapore, whose land reclamation works was greatly affected.

Ironically, all these came just days after declarations of goodwill and fraternity by Asean Leaders at the summit in Cebu.

Our fault? Maybe.

Let’s see it from our neighbour’s perspectives; I believe even some Singaporeans might agree with this. It is no doubt that Singapore’s ‘kiasu’ negotiating style and hard-headed approach brought things towards our favour. However, it is also no wonder that our neighbours might be unhappy with us. So, we are not completely out of fault.

Reasonable excuse? Maybe not.

Now, let’s see it from Singapore’s perspectives; Jealousy… Sour-grapes we might say. The bases of the attacks are unreasonable, with unfounded accusations and sudden blanket ban. Some of us might even see them as relentless attempts to throw us off-course, of which are ultimately futile.

We had come up with NEWater, which some bluntly put it off as “toilet juice”, but which is now a multi-million dollar industry. As Warren Fernandez humorously put it across, we might come up with NEWsand and NEWisland as well. It is this resilience that Singaporean leaders have shown, that Singapore is able to be so successful.

Perhaps it is true; they are finding trouble for this successful know-it-all “little red dot” and perhaps, adding a dash of their own “nationalism”. Of course, historical differences still exist, namely Malaysia, who is always up for a row with their “ex-spouse” after an unhappy “marriage”.

It is also not the first time that our neighbours have been stirring up problems. Take the dispute over the Singapore-occupied islet known as Pedra Branca and threats to cut off Malaysia’s water supply for example. So, with all these disputes within the region, the problem might lie with ALL of us. I believe all these can be resolved with mutual respect and a sense of rationality.

I have to say I do not follow politics closely, but these issues are something that catches the attention of everyone, something that taxi drivers will go on and on throughout my ride. I believe as Singaporean citizens, we should, at least, know about our country’s foreign relations and see what is really behind all these disputes.

-Finance and Law-

Organ Trading in Singapore: Should it be allowed?

An article titled “Should organ trading be allowed? No, says poll” by Melissa Sim and Vincent Leow appeared on the Sunday Times on 4th February 2007. It was published after a heated debate on this issue was sparked off in the ST Forum.

One may agree with the article that life is precious and brings up the issue regarding the sanctity of life. This side of the debate argues that organs, unlike medical technology and drugs, are not commodities that the public should sell away. They argue that we are not born to sell our organs and we will not be able to put a price tag on ourselves.

Others might argue that organ trading should be allowed to save more lives. Sources state that there were 543 end-stage renal patients on the waiting list for kidneys while only 85 kidney transplants were performed last year. Selling organs can save even more lives.

Much as I agree that life is precious and that morality and ethic issues regarding organ sales exist, I believe that organ trading should be allowed. It is a known fact that organs, in this case, kidneys from the deceased are never enough to satisfy the demand, and by giving out a kidney, we are able to end the suffering of many diabetic or other patients. By doing so, instead of conflicting with morality issues, we are saving many more lives. Also, even if Singapore does not allow organ trading, the patients would still go overseas for cheap, risky transplants.

Things are never perfect. The poor will never be able to afford an organ and social issues will emerge. It will be a situation whereby all the organs will go to the rich or prominent patients, leaving the poor with nothing. Black markets can be eliminated, though strict government regulations, such as performing operations only with organs that are certified by hospitals and the purchase clearly documented.

Then came along the issue on the willingness of Singaporeans to sell their organs. Majority of the citizens would buy organs without hesitation if they need it, but are generally unwilling to sell them. Explanation? The Human Nature to put self before others.

They ask questions like, “Why should I sell my organs? I have enough money..." but have they ever empathized with the suffering patients? Those who have a bloated stomach, legs that hurt all the time, going for long term dialysis treatment… Such is our selfishness.

In conclusion, this is an extremely complex issue, involving both social issues health care issues. There may be no right or wrong. The government may not come up with a decision. My stand is this: Life is precious, but saving lives is priceless. Yes, this is a bit too ideal. I still hope that the society will have more social awareness and consciousness, to help the less fortunate, but, I understand that it is not easy to give up any part of your body.

So, what is your stand in this?

-Finance and Law-