UFOs in Singapore?!!?!

After the UFO article by Kate Smith, 3 other guys also wrote in response to this. And it's even more interesting.....they saw experienced UFO sightings RIGHT HRE IN SINGAPORE!!!! Hmmm....why didn't I notice anything in the papers? Or have I missed the article about it?

Marina South Park, Pulau Tekong, Labrador Park.....all these names are so very familiar to me. I sort of can't wait to spot one myself. Maybe I should do more staring up into the night skies now.

UFO - Intriguing Mystic

I read with inquisitive on what Kate Smith wrote in her article 'Was that a balloon?' on Today's Voices section on 26th July '05.

She has a really keen interest in UFOs such that she can relate to a number of reports made all the way from Mexico. Her passage is interesting and informative. I'm intrigue by the same subject too, although not to her extent of following closely on reports of sightings of UFOs from around the world.

I do not know what to make out of such sightings. It seems really absurd for the media can claim that the 14 UFOs sighted on 24 Jun in Xalapa were actually balloons. The governor, along with the police, and his staff, and the general public who gathered to the ceremony stared at the UFOs for half an hour. The UFOs remained motionless throughout. So how could it be balloons? There were so many adults, including the governor and the police themselves, who stared at the objects for a full half an hour didn't even know how to recognise balloons? What kind of gas was pumped into the balloons, enabling it to hover motionless in mid-aif for half an hour? This sounds too fishy.....

Maybe aliens do exist. Because there are so many unsolvable mysteries behind these sightings. Let's disregard those sightings made by individuals. If we solely research on those reported by many people at the same time from the same place, it's quite convincing that these unexplainable phenomenons are indeed aliens.

I, for one, prefer to believe them.

$40K for a naming game?!?!?!?!?!

Granted, it's slightly lesser than how much a 'peanut' cost, by the standards of our dear Mrs Goh CT, and maybe by govt standards (afterall, Mrs Goh's man was in parliament, if she can make such statements, I think whoever sits in the parliament hall fully agrees as well, but just didn't voice it out).

BUT STILL...... it's too much a figure to throw out for a naming game.....especially when in the end....the NEW name for the place is SAME AS THE OLD NAME!!!!

Great, it cost Singapore a little less then a 'peanut' to know that what was originally so, is the best! I'm not sure if the board is proud of such an achievement or what. Did they spend $40K to show Singaporeans that their first option is the best option?

Hey, we know that, we like the original name too. So it's better off donating this amount to NKF, although it still isn't even good enough to pay the ex-CEO his salary. Spend wisely!!!

Miss English-teacher-and-author, get your issue right too...

Ms English-teacher-and author who wrote to Today Voices on 18th Jul 05, when you stand up for the man who is your friend, stand up for a good course, not to defend someone who continually lie to the general public and when he lost, he doesn't even seem to admit his faults.

I for one, do not fault him for his $25K. If you think that his hardworking ways and punishing work schedule is fully justifiable for taking $25K a month, I'm cool about it! But tell me how is it justifiable for him to lie about so many things and even sue someone for his own lies? How is it justifiable for him, as a CEO, to think otherwise that the grossly misconfigured figures announced to the public is immaterial? If you think that great man deserves great pay, then what about a man who is lack of morals? Does he deserve public denouncement? Especially when he is paid to know his own organization's operating figures and status, he should all the more know it at his finger tips with his $25K salary a month.

No?

Get the issues right ...

Singaporeans are a bunch of complain kings and queens. Granted! But some make good points (and most don't.)

The NKF ex-CEO deserves a beating not for his $25K salary a month. So many people are gribbing about the wrong point. If TT Durai is to stand tall and says that he deserves the full $25K of it, I'm not gonna shoot him down and say that he's wrong. He may really be worth such an amount looking at how the organization (profit or non-profit!?!?!) earns. Fact is, does he deserve the 10-12 month bonus. OK, maybe it's still contreversial enough. He performs, he gets. But definitely, lying to achieve performance is not, should not, and never should be an option.

NKF claimed to have 3 years in reserve only, and they stood by it firmly when the public said 3 years is a lot. Actually, if it is really only 3 years of reserve, I'll still say maybe it's reasonable. At least all the patients have a peace of mind to hear that. BUT, in fact, NKF had 30 years of reserve, enough to fully subsidize each and every one of the patients for their monthly treatment expenses. 30 years and 3 years is too huge a difference to declare miscalculation. This is an outright lie.

And NKF too claims to have 3000 patients, when in fact they only have 2000. The figure is 33% overblown. If adding on the blatant lie about having 3 years reserve, I really do think that the whole board of MONKEYS should quit. Come on, they don't even know how to count, they can't get their figures right, they make errors with 4-6 digit figures. With this kinda lack of basic primary school level maths, I think no wonder our dear Mrs Goh can say that $600K is peanuts. Maybe she miscalculated the zeroes in this figure.

And of course, lying about not flying in first class is another outrageous example. They can even sue the 2 men who said that they saw TT Durai sitting in first class. Now, this is a classic example of 恶人先搞状. This is definitely unforgivable. If he had kept quiet, or had given a public apology, the situation won't be that bad. But this behaviour just prove that he is unrepentent about his own ways.

What about the gold tap issue? Does he need the contractor to stand out before he knows how to admit his own mistake/oversight again? Can he only see the light when he is forced into a corner like the above 3 issues?

It's the lies that are killing the organization. Not the $25K monthly salary.
Singaporeans, get your ideas right, and complaints, to the point!

Mrs Goh commits suicide too.....

Trust a lawyer to shoot herself in the toe! Luckily, she wasn't practising.

'For a person who runs a million-dollar charitable organisation, $600,000 is peanuts as it has a few hundred millions in reserves.' Mrs Goh CT

Mrs Goh, for goodness sake, stop acting like a stuck up tai tai who doesn't know the meaning of money-worth. Yes, you are rich! Yes, $600K is nothing to you! Yes, your husband may earn more than that! BUT COMMONERS LIKE US DO NOT!!!!! And where did NKF's funds come from? FROM US, COMMONERS!!!! FROM US WHO DO NOT EARN $600K A YEAR. WE DON'T SEE THE SHADOW OF IT EVEN IF WE USE BINOCULARS!!!!

Oh, and you said it's peanuts. So carry on and donate $600K to the other charities. It's peanuts, come on!

And oh, you mean it's peanuts compared to the FEW HUNDRED MILLIONS in reserves? Great! You just told us that we were conned! NKF has such huge reserves that $600K is nothing. Then why mislead us into believing that reserves only last for 3 years and that without our donations, NKF patients are not going to survive? Isn't this shooting yourself in the toe? And you'll probaby get a marksman for this! Hallelujah!

Insensitive brat! It's our hard earned money. And you just waved it off as 'peanuts'!!!!! Then we probably shouldn't have donated, caused we used all our efforts, donated from our miserable salary (if $600K is peanuts, then our $30K probably is atomic), to gather so much charity cash, and our dear Mrs Goh doesn't even lift an eyebrow to it cause it's only peanuts!

What a good way of showing gratitude!!! Mrs Goh CT.

NKF Commits Suicide

They are doing nothing less than committing suicide.

This joker, TT Durai, CEO of NKF, actually planned to sue SPH for defamation? Stupid, the most stupidest act ever. He has so many skeletons to hide that he became such an easy target for the news diggers (reporters). Just pick a loose end and start to tuck, every beans will spill. Then who should he choose? SPH! DUH!!!!! How duh can this get! SPH = PAP. Sueing SPH, equals sueing PAP, got more stupid then this or not. Even if SPH doesn't have that close relationship with PAP, SPH leh! Reporters are best at digging out the dirt, and somemore have the ultimate power of publishing it to the whole world. Like that TTD still have the guts to sue ah? I go burn incense stick and bow to you ah!

A non-charity organisation CEO, drawing $25,000 monthly salary is unbelievable. When we talk about non-charity organisation, the first thing that comes to mind when one wants to work there, is the low salary. But this 'charity' organisation is so so different. On top of this $25K salary a month, HE STILL GETS 12 MONTHS BONUS, FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS!!!!! Wah, impressive. This is how one should kill his career and his reputation. And then further more, he travels 1st Class when flying and have gold taps in his personal washroom in his office (the after thought of removing it due to complaints by the plumber and accusation by the reporter just add to the fact that he is guilty).

Actually, this NKF charity show is really getting quite out of hand. To bring out big posh carS (please note the 'S'), and big amount of cash reward for lucky draw just show that this organization doesn't know it's priorities. When the public donate money, it's with the expectation that it can help the needy (OK, I admit, there are definitely a group that is banging for the prize, let's just skip this group of black sheep. Most people vote to help!). I bet more than half of these good sheep are feeling both bewildered by the cash rewards and posh cars, but at the same time can't stop themselves hoping to win. And then on top of it wanting to donate for a good cause, but don't wanna look like greedy pigs just yearning for the prize. Mixed feelings, yeah!

The confused woman strikes again!

Yes, Frances Ong strikes again, and even more confused than before.

First attempt at clarification : 'Never did I claim that to obey is not to question....'
OK, you question. So after questioning, what did you do? Obey his wishes although you question them? Or if you question their wishes, then just follow what you think is right? If it's the latter that you choose, please, don't tell me this is 'to obey'!

Second attempt at clarification : 'I did promote the idea that women should not speak up and fight for their happiness and dreams...'
Fine, so that means we should speak up and fight for our happiness and dreams yeah? So how to 'obey' if you speak up? Or do you speak up and fight, but in the end, after saying all you felt like saying, you go back to being obedient? Ha....please please, don't encourage the all-words, no-action culture to be practised here. It just makes the male population even more convinced that women are pure naggers and whiners.

Third attempt at clarificaiton : '...I did not see why a wife should give up her dreams just becos she is married. However, as she climbs up the corporate ladder, she should be mindful that she is part of a family unit. If she doesn't care to shower attention on her husband, other women might be more willing to do that.'
Cool! Same goes, if the husband is not mindful that when climbing up the corporate ladder, he should not forget that he also has to shower care and attention on his wife, if not, other men might be more willing to do that. Not that I don't think her theory is not right, but I think it's not something unique to only the female population. Vice versa, it happens to the male population as well. She makes it sounds like if I don't suck up to my husband, he will find someone else to suck up to him. On the contrary, I really feel the urge to agree with her though. simply because of the fact that men are really that chauvenistic and shallow animals. Once he doesn't feel your attention showering, he goes for other gals. He doesn't try to find out why. He doesn't blame himself. He doesn't even think that he may be at fault, maybe he was too engrossed in work and had stopped showering care and concern on his wife, or he was too tired and has ignored his wife, or his wife is too tired but he doesn't care less cos he wants to be on the attention receving end more than the attention giving end. Maybe guys are really animals who won't give, unless he receives. But by agreeing that men are ungrateful and unfaithful creatures, Frances still doesn't get my vote that we should therefore, forcus on showering our attention on them so that they won't flirt around.

Fourth attempt at clarification : 'If she decides to have children, she should share the responsibility with her husband to bring them up well and not use surrogate parents like maids or grandparents.'
Yeah, I agree. And I also agree that the father should not shirk the responsibility too, and treat his wife as the surrogate father. In today's context, many families survive on dual income. Which means mothers have to work too. I'm not declaring that women do not need to take care of the family because they are working too. I just wanna make it straight that both parents should play equal parts in bringing up the kids. The idea of pushing the blame on women whenever things aren't right simply because they are not housewives is unforgiveable. Men stray because wives don't shower enough attention? Kids are not brought up well because women don't stay home enough to teach? And when the time comes when the women stay in, they should have lesser say because they don't know enough of the world? Or they contribute less in terms of money at home (don't say it doesn't happen, but some guys do have a tendency to think that way)? Or that when husbands don't shower enough attention, we should not fault them as they have the valid reason of chasing their aspirations at work? Or that we are unattractive enough and will not have some other guys who is more than willing to give us the attention if our husbands don't?

Frances, if you are talking about relationships, talk in terms of improvement or focus from both parties' point of view. Don't only harp on the women's side. I won't fault Ms Rene Yap for thinking that you are an avid supporter of being a totally submissive wife. Afterall, you did gave the idea through your passage.

First a wife, then a career woman....!?!?!!?!?!?

This analogy, to me, is ridiculous! Check out TODAY Voices (Tue 5th Jul).

This pitiful woman actually takes pride in picking up an old time, ancient, outdated idea of being 'First a wife, then a career woman....'

Firstly, in the past, men could marry a few wives at the same time, they did not need to throw out their first, to take in the second, third and fourth. As long as the first wife kept an eye closed, she could still remain in the family, with food and shelter taken care of.

If Frances Ong is a lucky woman, and has full confidence in her man, carry on with this kinda thinking, and I hope the best for you!

In today's circumstances, if men are ever going to stray, he gotta ditch you, before he can go with his new love. This means no food & shelter for the first wife. And who's left in the lurch? Who's left with nothing but hate? Who's left with the empty promises and forgotten vows? Who's the one to be financially strained? Come on, you still have to fight for your alimony, and pray hard that the court gives it to you. If you so hate a person who had shirked family responsibility once, but still have to depend on him for alimony to stay alive, I think I'll be better off dead. Why do we want to put ourselves in such risky stage?

Don't ask why marry a man whom you do not have 100% confidence in. Nowadays, having a safety net is the key. Why buy insurance if not for a peace of mind! For the same reason, why have a job and be financially independent if not for a peace of mind!

Secondly, hallelujah for her thinking that being a modern woman means we have to behave like man. What's going on in her mind, I really wonder. She is the traditional woman i supposed then, if she refers to those who put career as important as family as modern woman. So what's behaving like man? Being good at work? Enjoying the ability to contribute to the economy? Being able to have someone at home to wait on oneself? Not viewing obedience as a form of weakness? Are these masculine traits of what she thinks make a man?

Does she mean that being feminine is then only being good at home (or maybe in bed)? To be satisfied that even if she has the capability of contributing to the economy, she is better off staying at home and contributing through her dosmestic duties? Being able to wait on someone, and treat obedience (and submissivity) as her most valued virtue?

I can't understand there is still such educated women (who can write in fluent English) who can ever live with such unrealistic, impractical expectations of men.

Maybe I'm not as lucky as her. She probably has such a loving and caring husband that she feels contentment just by waiting on him. I don't. If I live by her standard of virtues, I will really really really rather be dead! Obedience can be given for reasonable and logical demands. For unresonable, illogical and incredibly bewildered demands, obedience is considered as blind obssession. When my husband expects me to say sorry the first instant he comments or complains about me; when he expects me to say sorry first even if I had explanations to make; when he then after lectures me that if I had said sorry the first instant, then don't come out with IFs and BUTs; and then confuses me further by saying if I had valid reasons or explanations, I should communicate in the first instant, and not to apologize first bcos giving explanations after sarying sorry is like finding an excuse to wiggle myself out of situations. Frances, if you read this, tell me how to commit myself with obedience, 'be feminine', to cut away from work (and colleauges who gave me a social life to balance up my frustration), and just keep the house tidy after my dear husband blows up for the tiniest of reasons and throws things around to vent his anger?

Thirdly, this confused woman says that it is the right to fight for equal rights at workplace. But the husband might as well marry his male co-worker if we do this at home too. Hey, tell your husband to be a man. Does he can't stand the pressure of having women to challenge his decision-making / performance assessment in the workplace such that he needs a woman at home who doesn't have a mind of his own to prove his worth of existence? Or does he can't live with the fact that he may not be the boss in his office, thus need to boss around at home to find a balance in life? Or does he can't stand the idea of having someone of the same calibre as him in the workplace, such that he needs to feel superior at home having a woman who only have aspirations on how to cook better meals, how to be more efficient in tidying up the house, or how to better serve him in bed?

I can just say, congratulations to Mr and Mrs Frances Ong! You have found the right spouse to marry in this life! One will rather his woman be simple, and one will rather be a simple woman. But if I were you, I will not write to the papers to teach all other women to go your way.

A good marriage needs mutual trust, communication, appreciation, accomodation and love to flourish. (Although I'm still in the process of achieving that!) Not just a one-way obedience and acceptance of lower status by the woman, to satisfy the man's inferior complex. If she happens to have a grandpa who appreciates, love and respect his wife, congrats again! But it doesn't happen always.... and her formula will kill, more than save, the female population!