'Flight Plan' is good, but flawed....!

I watched 'Flight Plan' played by Jodie Foster a couple of weeks back. I like the show. It sets us thinking. Never to make assumptions.

It was a good show, until the last scene. It displayed how racist and imperfect Americans still are!

In the show, the captain of the flight had wronged Jodie Foster for hallucinating, seeking attention and creating a lot of unrest on board. When the truth was out, the captain walked up to Jodie, and apologised for his accusations.

But Jodie had also wronged an Arab on the flight. She screamed and accused the Arab of abducting her daughter. But when the truth emerged, and the Arab wasn't the culprit (it was an American who abducted her), Jodie did not apologise for her rash actions. The accused Arab had still lend her a helping hand with the luggage.

It sort of implies that when an American wronged an Arab, he does not need to be sorry for it. The Arab, in return, still have to treat the American like friends, if not bosses.

Hollywood's script is very telling!!!

Grant clemency to save one but loose all?

I have never doubted the President and the government's decision of not granting clemency to Ngyun Tuong Van, who was sentenced to death after being caught at Changi Aiport's Transit Lounge for drug trafficking.

Why is there such a big fuss about it. Wanna play, then obey the rules.

Mr/Ms So and so, who wrote to Today, empathising with Ngyun for being sentenced to death in Singapore reasoning that Ngyun was not bringing heroin into Singapore or doing any harm to Singaporeans. How selfish can a person be. Since it doesn't harm us, we shall not be concerned although it will harm citizens of other countries? Anyway, what if he smuggle it back to Australia and the drugs indirectly was sold to Singaporean addicts who are living in Australia? Singapore is contributing to the world wide anti-drug campaigns in it's very own and harsh way. Unless you mean that heroin is poison only for Singapore Singaporeans, but food for all other people who do not stay in Singapore at the moment, I don't think it's right to let him off the hook so that he can do harm to others in other countries or even to his own countrymen back in Australia.

Young it may be for 25 year-old Ngyun. but old it should be for an adult to be held responsible for his own actions. 21 years old is the mark of switching from being a minor to being an adult. 25 is 4 years past that age. He should be used to being held responsible for whatever he decides on.

Drugs kill, regardless of how old the carrier is. It doesn't mean that drugs smuggled by a 25 year old is less deadly and harmful than drugs smuggled by a 50 year old. The ill effects of drugs are heavily and extensively publicised. I think we can safely assume that Ngyun is well aware of such facts.

It was too bad that although his intention was good, and he badly needed some financial help, he chose a wrong way and he has to pay for it. Furthermore, it is not justifiable to let off the poor if they were caught trafficking voluntarily due to 'forced' circumstances.

Think about the implications it means if Singapore is to grant clemency to Ngyun.

Singapore made huge efforts to keep our state as drug-clean as possible. We make no secrets about our harsh laws when dealing with traffickers. Should this hard-earned status be shed just for this young chap, who indeed was in the wrong? Should we practise double standards for those countries who are on good terms with us or had helped us in another way? Are the people who support clemency implying that bribery (by helping Singapore in one way or another) is the way to go if the other countries want their citizens to be pardoned if they ever were caught trafficking via Singapore?

I know that Ngyun had helped the police, without holding back, with much information about the drug dealers. But sadly, it is still not a move to buy your way out. Imagine, if I need some money, and I decide to smuggle drugs. And if the rule applies that if you try your best to help the police in their investigation, you'll escape death. I'll definitely take the risk. If I get through, I get the money. If I happened to get caught, I just spill the beans and I'll be spared. Isn't life too easy?

Ngyun had nearly 400gm of heroin with him. I'm not an expert, I'm not even a user. I don't know how many doses this can effect. But by punishing one, it can save a few others, then why not. Yes, if Ngyun had not do it, there will be others doing it. And addicts will still get their supply one way or the other. But think hard, if we do nothing, isn't it more disastrous???

Condo-stayers vs HDB dwellers . . .

I have not stayed in a condo before. But our experience with the HDB dwellers had convinced my husband that condo may be what we really want. But after reading through the experiences of Ms Jennifer Chua in her article 'One help, the other dodges' (Today, Nov 4), I probably should advice my husband to reconsider.

My 20+ years stay in the HDB were 'coloured' with a handful of irritable neighbours. And I should think that all HDB dwellers had at least experienced one of these issues. Will condo-living solve these?

1) Some 'sand-blind' dwellers blatantly ignore the effort made by the town council to strategically place dustbins right next to the letterbox. The area is still constantly littered with adverts by unconsiderate, lazy bums. And it never seemed to get cleared away especially in my block (maybe because the whole block's worth of conservancy fees is not enough to pay for the salary of a cleaner to help with the mess).

It's hard to educate the inconsiderate not to litter. If a dustbin can be provided right beside the letterbox area, and there are still so many people who chose to throw their waste on the floor instead of the bin, it's gonna be the same wherever you stay (unless you mean the landed property). The difference is, in a condo, you have a cleaner hard at work every day. You have a management to complain to, who will take it seriously and work on it. They pay maintenance fee, equivalent to our conservancy fees, but maybe they get quick, daily service cos it cost more.

2) Then it's the common rubbish chute beside the lift. The foot pedal is spoilt, making the chute virtually unusable unless you open the chute with your hands (which is not advisable, just a quick touch of the handle will make you smell even at the distance of 5m away). We got the habit of going one floor up or one floor down to use the chute, while others just put their rubbish beside the chute (which luckily is cleared every day except Sunday. At least our conservancy fees are enough to pay the cleaner to clear the chute area. But alas, it is still not enough for the town council to repair the spoilt foot pedal).

I'm not too sure if condos have common chutes or individual chutes. But I should think that with the high maintenance fee, condo owners do have a louder say for a responsive service for it to be repaired if it's found faulty.

3) And you have the lifts which work independent of each other. Pressing on one, doesn't mean it will activate the electronics managing the two lifts. You'll have to press on the other lift as well, to activate that. It makes me wonder if I live in the 21st century.

Again, with higher maintenance fee, of course you can also complain about the lifts and get an immediate response.

4) The inconsiderate neighbours add to the fire by littering sticky foodstuff along the common corridor and it happens to be in front of your unit. And it may take up to a month before the washing attendant comes to your rescue.

Less units per floor may mean less irritants, maybe. And more frequent washing schedule too I reckon, which comes with the higher maintenance fee.

5) Furthermore, you have part-timers who took the effort to walk to every unit of every floor of every block in your estate to bring to your doorstep, the most recent promotional efforts of Pizza Hut, buffet caterers, locksmith services, property agents' sales, etc. . . And intentionally, they will lure the eyes of burglars to those units with the most piled up leaflets in front of the door, which means nobody's home!!!

You'll never again get these useless pieces of paper lying around your door. The sight of a gantry to the condo should be able to ward off these part-timers even before they reach your lift lobby.

6) We have weird aunties/uncles too. Who seemed to believe that if they help with the lift buttons, they will be termed 'lift operators'. So they'll stand beside the lift buttons, staring into mid-air, blocking others from reaching for the buttons as well, and wait patiently for the door to close automatically.

I should think there will also be weird people in condos who just refuse to press the lift buttons other than the floor that they want to go to. Many 'ang mohs' fall prey to this kind of behaviour. I've seen it time and again in my office. Not all 'ang mohs' are like that, but it was enough to make an impression.

And I do think that maybe what Jennifer had experienced about the 'weird' ang moh who was uncomfortable to even take the same lift with her mother-in-law who had a stroke was not that uncommon afterall. Thus, making the stay in a condo seemingly more unfriendly then ever (assuming there are more 'ang mohs' renting/buying condos rather than HDBs).

The 'signs' placed on her husband's car also proved a point, that condo-stayers may be less tolerant and sometimes over confident about their own rights (maybe because they think that their maintenance fee is so much higher than a HDB dweller that they have the right to demand things to revolve around them).

I'll still have to do my maths while considering if condo is really the answer to our HDB woes!