 |
What a swinging week. My anticipation and expectation of a good budget debate session petered out on weak murmurings, predictable dialogues and the usual red herrings. The anti-climax is due either to the declining quality of grey matter among the PAP Commons or the solid, watertight character of a good and wise budget. It is both. That's why you see the Workers' Party effectively silenced, for Low and Lim are clever enough not to posture themselves against a budget that favored their key constituents, the working Singaporean at the bottom half of the socioeconomic ladder. Meanwhile the PAP Commons, together with the odd nominated members, scrambled to take their positions in the usual suspects lineup with inflation lines in the background. No limping Verbal Kint here. But as the debate whittled down at mid-week, a limping Mas performed what was probably the most astonishing prison break ever in Singapore, throwing a nation into suspense.
Inflated Anti-Climax
So the week began with a befitting coincidence of events that heightened the plot. The Department of Statistics published its inflation data, a whopping lucky 6.6% year-on-year to greet the Rat year, and the Ministry of Trade and Industry jumped in with explanations to calm the audience (ST 26/2/08), just as everyone was watching budgetary maneuvers along the River, if they were not too busy running the hamster wheel to keep still with inflation. Not to worry, 6.6% is consistent with full-year inflation forecast of 4.5-5.5%, says MTI, because the difference lies in a bunch of one-offs: revaluation of HDB flat property value based on theoretical rental income, global food price spikes, high oil prices making transportation costly and the GST effect. I understand, but these are hardly one-offs, they seem to be trends, except for the GST: rising rents due to the surge of foreign talents and China consuming ever more food and oil as its economy overheats. But the MTI forecast is right after all. If we remove the housing component (11.1%, weighted 21%), which, as has been pointed out, does not affect most Singaporeans since they own their flat and do not rent, the figure is 5.46%.
One major forecast was way off the mark, and that's the budget estimate itself, and when WP's Low asked why, PAP's Lim Wee Kiak replied with a lottery analogy (ST 28/2/08). Supposedly, according to Lim, a lottery winner shouldn't ask why he struck the lottery but how he is going to use the money. This is bad drama. The implication is that the Cabinet is gambling with our national wealth and all the forecasting done by the well-paid government executives a matter of probability calculation. Bah, and this with all the sanctimonious admonishments coming from the PAP Commons about Singaporeans' "'gimme' Hongbao mentality" (ST 26/2/08) and from the Press that the "Finance Minister is not the God of Fortune". Indeed, he is not, but can we stop with these really bad scripted analogies already? My mandarin oranges have long rotted.
Another tiresome but more serious line is the GST hike, with WP, PAP and Nominated MPs urging reversal or questioning the timing. For those who question the timing, they simply don't get that, to use the analogy-type plaguing the budget debate, forecasting is not fortune telling--the hike was made based on a budget estimate. But more importantly, the Finance Minister explains it clear and loud: the GST taxes the consumption of foreigners and the top 20 percent of Singaporeans in terms of wealth to pay for the social and welfare services supporting the bottom 20 percent (ST 28/2/08), while the rest are soothed by GST offsets. From my position in the left, in case you don't already know, I am in hearty agreement with the Minister that this is effectively a good progressive tax. Professor Basant Kapur may be right to argue that it is better to borrow to finance the government's development expenditure than to raise GST for reasons of economic efficiency (ST 29/2/08). But the GST move is fundamentally socioeconomic rather than merely economic. It is not about optimizing revenue, but about redistributing wealth to maintain our social compact under the circumstances of the PAP's policy of engagement with globalization: clench your teeth, speak good English and suck up to the super-rich to come here to play and welcome the foreign talents (out of necessity because our autocratic system stifled our creativity and caused brain hemorrhage).
Mobile Ghosts
That is the ghost in the machine: foreign talents. We have become dependent on them to drive the new economy. But unless they naturalize to become Singaporeans, sufficient distinctions with real material effect in terms of subsidies and benefits must be draw between them and citizens to retain the significance of being Singaporean. The devil is in the details of "sufficient", because this is about the sentiment of Singaporeans. Contrary to depictions of this sentiment as "irrational", it is actually a political expression rising from the real material grind of everyday life faced by Singaporeans. The sandwich middle class is most affected in the immediate sense as they are in direct competition with foreign talents for the same jobs. But overall, the upward social mobility of all Singaporeans is negatively affected. It is not that Singaporeans do not welcome foreign talents; they know they depend on them. The question is sufficient distinction so that Singaporeans don't feel that they are losing out in their share of the pie.
The ghosts of upward social mobility, foreign talents haunting Singaporeans and the latter's sentiments haunting the government, have been hovering through the budget debate. Thus, the Ministry of Manpower releases well-timed statistics showing, purportedly, that "Singaporeans are benefiting from the employment boom", though six in ten of new jobs went to foreigners in 2007 (ST 1/3/08). The figures show that 45% of Singaporean employees are Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians, or PMETs, in 2007 compared to 39%, with the proportion of clerical, sales and service workers (white and pink-collars) and production workers (blue-collar) falling 3% each to 27% and 28% respectively. This is faulty argumentation and borders on stats-washing the issue. These figures show that more Singaporeans are "winning over", to use the same language, other Singaporeans in becoming PMETs: in 2007, 45% beat the other 55% to be PMET. They do not show Singaporeans losing out or winning over foreign talents. It is simple. When talking about apples compared to oranges, don't just compare the oranges but apples to oranges. Civil servants should try to engage the sentiment not explain them away by faulty statistical representations.
With runaway inflation in the rental sector and rising private property prices, due to the surge in foreign talents, the $8,000 income ceiling for first-time buyers of HDB flats is fast becoming the symbol of a citizenship glass ceiling of limited upward social mobility. One of the few calls for relief for the sandwiched middle class thus came from PAP MP Christopher de Souza, who called for the first-time buyer income ceiling to be revised upwards (ST 26/2/08). The ceiling is starting to haunt the Singaporean psyche, because we are defined by our housing. It used to signify that you have made it and are, therefore, free of the nanny state's care, to live in fantastically themed condos; a sign of "maturity" in our culture of upward social mobility. Now, it signifies to the middle-class that he/she has joined the rest of the ghosts and, good luck, you are on your own with the rest of the world in the effectively global property and talent market. And to the working classes, the income ceiling is as meaningful as the ghost in the public corridor kept at bay by locked HDB flat doors. On their part, Singaporeans should try to deal with our ghosts better instead of turning to the talisman of policy change. If upward social mobility is gone, now what do we do with our lives?
Limping Suspense
Not exactly Verbal Kint giving up his limp for a smooth getaway driven by Mr Kobayashi, but the limping terrorist leader did break out from a maximum-security facility in mid-week in broad daylight to steal the show from the budget (and a ridiculous self-congratulatory feature on ST winning lots of "journalist" prizes at the SPH awards, what a no-brainer). Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng duly apologized for the security lapse, but was asked by PAP MP Teo Ho Pin to explain the four-hour gap between the breakout and the government's announcement to the media. DPM Wong replied that there was no imminent danger to the public and the priority was police operations to hunt limping Mas down (ST 29/2/08). I don't even see the need for the question. In the hunt for war criminals and terrorists, intelligence is paramount not the mobilization of the public to vigilante hunts or color-coded alerts that just end up numbing the public to security threats. A four-hour gap seems reasonable so that police operations won't be compromised. Besides, what can the public do?
Well, it seems quite a lot, as the ST headlines on Saturday proudly announce, "Search for JI man goes to the grassroots" (1/3/08). I find the feature with the frontpage leader next to the headlines screaming "Muslims act: How a grassroots leader's SMS moved Muslim volunteers to hand out 10,000 Wanted posters" rather unsavory. The feature showed a photograph of two Muslim women volunteers giving out posters at Tampines MRT station (HOME section, frontpage). I can certainly understand this as a positive representation by the Straits Times of Muslim loyalty, especially after the Muslim community came under some unwarranted scrutiny for the handful of JI miscreants in 2001. But the implication is too uncomfortably clear: Mas Selamat is an Islamist terrorist, so Muslims should put in even more effort to show that they denounce him. Instead of casting a spotlight on Muslims, would not a feature emphasizing the grassroots efforts as multiracial, multireligious efforts, which they are, better serve the public good?
The whole publicity given to the nation-wide effort to capture limping Mas is a good opportunity for national education. It would be a missed opportunity with adverse effects, and a failure on every Singaporean's part, if the Muslim community feels that the spotlight is on them and if Muslims overcompensate and act because of the heat. Yesterday, I was in a lift with a mother and her young adolescent daughter and overheard their conversation regarding the "wanted" poster: "mummy, who is that?", "a bad man", "why is his picture put up there?", "so that if we see him, we can call the police to catch him", "why is he bad?", at this point the mother goes silent. We would become a truly multicultural society with strong "psychological" defense and a nation regardless of race and religion when the mother is able to answer, "because he uses religion as an excuse to harm others".
Comments (49)
Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (An angbao after budget) / Won't somebody help me chase the inflation away! Then again my three-handed economist friends tell me (on the one hand) that handouts are inflationary. In any case, we can be sure that there won't be an election akan datang in this financial year. Speaking of analogies by the Commons, who then might be our Lords Spiritual and Temporal?
Ghost In The Machine. Gilbert Ryle's derogatory characterization of Cartesian dualism as GITM foregrounded his fierce advocacy for paying attention to language along the lines of Wittgenstein and J.L. Austin. Perhaps some of the anxiety comes from how the language games of policymakers (sayeth unto policytakers) about foreign talent (mass noun, no 's' required for plural, grammar fascism yadda yadda) seem to convey the implication is that Singaporeans are deficit, replaceable, dispensable. Or were those just the voices of the beasts under my bed? In my closet?? In my head!!?? EXIT LIGHT!!!
Where in the world is MSK? Said young adolescent girl has obviously not been listening during her Total Defence / National Education lessons otherwise she can enlighten her mom! Oh wait, so sorry, it doesn't seem to be in the syllabus.
Posted by ringisei![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.singaporeangle.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 2, 2008 5:54 PM
The ST probably used that story angle to educate the still unnationally educated (or nationally uneducated?) that not all Muslims are terrorists and vice versa. From your lift story, it shows that some people still have that mentality.
I wonder how differently did Berita Harian report the seemingly mainly Muslim effort to distribute wanted flyers.
Posted by The Void Deck | March 2, 2008 6:35 PM
I would really be nice if we had the brudderhud eye candy here, Darkness to do his magic *wink
Posted by immanuel | March 2, 2008 8:26 PM
This may well be an off-point comment, but I don't believe you can treat people like gutter garbage and expect them to just forget it all See herehttp://www.singaporeangle.com/2008/01/privacy_for_ah_kong_privacy_fo.html#comment-24017. Who do you think you people are? Darkness may have made one off-site comment here, but I do not think it is possible for an reasonably well educated person to discount the many insightful comments he made here, to see one and one and not to see the rest is to lose sight of the whole - I felt this wasnt done in bad taste and in the worst possible way, it was summarily done and what is really sad abt it is no one in Singapore Angle bothered to say, stop and think!
I believe it is finished!
You can censor me if you wish, but I believe this is the sentiments shared by almost all the regular readers here!
Posted by y | March 3, 2008 11:29 AM
ringisei, haha, for a moment there, i thought you were one of them loonie-bins hanging around, but you made too much sense. Lords Spiritual and Temporal, hahaha, well, we have our MMs and SMs -- quite a good fit, ain't it? Looks like we are more British/medieval/white than we think we are. Dispensable Singaporeans, I tend to think that is it is our collective fault for allowing ourselves to be made dispensable, although Singaporeans are starting to show their mettle and refusing to go away.
TVD, that's a really good point, I'll go look up berita harian when I am free.
immanuel: huh? whatever you are smoking, its damn potent man, wink.
y: i don't care about what darkness this what darkness that, as what happens in the outer limits is irrelevant to me. You see, I am agnostic when it comes to religion, spirituality and other things I cannot see or measure. So, I am not going to censor you or anyone. Besides, its good to have some noise, without which we won't know the beauty of music (or as philosopher Michel Foucault once pointed out, there is no civilization without madness). But what I really don't understand and find very annoying is this Singaporean tendency of trying to represent the people when your view is really just your view. Are you so unsure of the strength of your opinion or reason of your argument that you need to say you speak for everyone here? Must you win by majority tyranny? And if you can't prove majority representation, what are you going to say, perhaps like our political leaders, say you represent 'the silent majority'? You know, if you are really very good in representing the people, go run for parliament and bring your great points to good effect in real life. I don't see what you have to gain by proving your mantle here.
Posted by dansong | March 3, 2008 1:09 PM
She speaks for me, hows that? i believe she has a point. If you dont care, that's your business, what has it got to do with me, them or the broader society that may choose to form their own opinion concerning this matter?
If you dont care about what happens in the outer limits, then why should you suddenly care abt this?
I dont believe she is trying to prove or establish anything beyond stating a very valid point, as usual we can expect nothing except silence and more silence from the SA. I realized this in the BL case. As for you not caring, was that so hard to figure out? I wonder.
And guess what the feeling is mutual!
Posted by Danielle | March 3, 2008 1:24 PM
Danielle, how's what? Who are you that I care about you being represented by 'y'? Well, its my business because this is my post, and you are coming into my garden and telling me it is none of my business you are ranting about some weird stuff while in my garden, presumably scolding my neighbor (ringisei) over the fence, which I have no clue to what the quarrel is about. Its a simple matter of courtesy. I still don't care about the outer limits, but don't land your spacecraft in my backyard, or at least when you do, turn off your engine, so I don't have to suffer the loud whining engine noise and the emission stench. BTW, we are a neighborhood here, not an organization or whateverhood; what the rest do to you or some other creature is none of my business, so if you want to go scream at them, go ahead, don't do it in my garden and don't yell at me. Simple common-sense courtesy. Sorry, I don't have any feelings for 'y' or you.
Posted by dansong | March 3, 2008 1:58 PM
As a matter of common courtesy dansong, I do not believe it is appropriate for you to make disparaging insinuations concerning the brotherhood or Darkness - terms such as "whateverhood" - "i don't care about what darkness this what darkness that, as what happens in the outer limits is irrelevant to me." Are clear references to him and them.
Not if it is still unclear as to whether they have a right to reply.
I believe if you continue to do so, you may even run the danger of inflaming the situation further. I do not see it serving any constructive purpose. I believe it is best if you just delete such post in the future and take Ringisei position, you can even say the die is cast.
It is very clear to me the divide is so great the prospects of seeing eye to eye over this or even BL's case is virtually nil. For there to be resolution, there needs to be mutual respect, it is clear you do not seem to respect them very much.
So what is the point?
Posted by a friend of the brotherhood | March 3, 2008 2:59 PM
Sometimes the divide can be so great, the best way to deal with is just to accept it, to simply say, you stay here and I've stay there, you do not need to respect me and in return I will not ask the same from you. There is no right or wrong, just a very simple understanding, this is the line that separates you from me.
I believe it is best that we all buy into this idea when we deal with the brotherhood.
It's finished! I happen to know darkness personally, certain things you can do to him and he will roll with it and even laugh it off in good humor, others things, he will come back again and again, relentlessly, I fear this may very well be the latter.
Posted by friend of the brotherhood | March 3, 2008 3:05 PM
Huh?? I'm impervious to threats of any kind because I've come to terms with my mortality a long time ago. So if you want to cyber-attack me, physically assault me or zap me with some existence-ridding thingamajig, go ahead. If it constitutes a criminal threat, I'll report it. If it is a physical threat, I'll defend myself. Otherwise, I don't care, and I don't believe in being civil to people who aren't. If you want to do the it's simple you stay on your side I stay on my side thingy, then do it, get out of my garden.
Posted by dansong | March 3, 2008 4:28 PM
Which part of it is threatening? Why dont you go make a police report and we will take it from there.
Go what are you waiting for?
Posted by Darkness | March 3, 2008 5:09 PM
All I see is someone who is wise enough to give some reasonably good advise on how to live and let live.
Go! Darkness 2008 - I have even taken the trouble to furnished you with my IP, go as now that you have made it so plain, if you do not go and make a police report you will simply come across as a complete idiot.
Just remember this does not affect my statutory rights to counter claim if your allegations are proven to be spurious.
I have CC dotty and the rest regarding the matter.
Now go and I will see you in the real world!
Posted by Darkness | March 3, 2008 5:17 PM
Dansong,
Go! But bfr you do so, I feel it's my duty to inform you that this does not in any way prejudice my right to a civil claim in tort - if it can be proven that you made a spurious unreasonable allegation concerning 'crimimal intimidation' under the penal code Act, so make sure you have ALL the facts to back it up, wall to wall, I wish you luck.
I am a gambling man and I think, I will go this round with you.
However, as a matter of sportmanship remember you started this FIRST by claiming that 'friend' threatened you. Again I reiterate under the strongest possible terms, HE DID NOT. And I am even prepared to prove you wrong on every count!
I have given you my IP. Go! What are you waiting for? Maybe this will be your saving grace after all?
"Notice: Each writer on Singapore Angle is in control over the comment threads associated with his own posts, to edit or delete individual comments, or to close the thread as he pleases."
Darkness - 2008
Posted by Darkness | March 3, 2008 5:29 PM
Dansong,
I have tried to be reasonable with you people, apologizing even to Ringisei to keep the peace, but evidently even that is not enough, you seem to relish taking pot shots at me and the whole wide world.
OK fine, we will play your game. Now please go! Don't hesitate, as the Nike slogan says, "just do it!"
Now you understand what I mean by a 'complete absence of wisdom' here.
Darkness-2008
Posted by Darkness | March 3, 2008 5:44 PM
Hey Darkness, read carefully: IF it constitutes a criminal threat... OTHERWISE I don't care. What "you people"? I don't belong to any organization, I don't care about your dealings with BL, Ringisei or whoever. I represent myself, not like the tangential 'off-point' off-the-wall commentators who claim to represent some entity or whatever. I don't have the patience to deal with imaginary rubbish when I am trying to talk and learn about real problems affecting the real lives of real people, which includes ME. So do your thing, cast your die or whatever, or else go get your own garden and get out of mine.
Posted by dansong | March 3, 2008 6:09 PM
Man, you guys are really thin-skinned. You really over-react to any perceived slight, even when there's none intended at all. I used to be amazed at how thin skinned the PAP were but you guys win them hands down.
Posted by Han | March 3, 2008 6:47 PM
Why wasn't the brotherhood press mentioned in the Singapore Blogosphere review conducted by Bernard Leong and Kevin Lim?
I told you ALL this question will not go away so easily.
http://intelligentsingaporean.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/intro-to-singapores-socio-political-blogosphere/
Why? Think abt it, I will be back again.
Darkness - 2008
Posted by Darkness | March 3, 2008 8:00 PM
Dansong,
You have 48 hours starting from now. If you do not act, I will act. I am sorry, I cannot tell you what dotty, Aurora and the rest will do. They have advised me not to give any clues out - it appears surprise is part of the plan. 48 hours. I want you to make your way to a police station and lodge a report.
Remember you started this game first, I will end it for you. I promise you.
All our communications are hereby terminated in the Singapore Angle.
Darkness - 2008
Posted by Darkness | March 3, 2008 8:15 PM
Darkness, I don't play childish games or delusional ones, whether 48 hours earth-time or your time. What's all this childish banter about 'you never give me attention', 'you started it first', hey, grow up and talk real issues, or else zap me with all your guns pointing south. Let me repeat to you what I have been saying all along: I DON'T CARE. Send dorothy, aurora and toto after me and send me home to Kansas on the next tornado, and I still DON'T CARE. I won't disturb the police now that they have a REAL terrorist at hand, not some virtual prankster who give people ridiculous ultimatum like 48 hours. Why take so long, just zap me now, why, your ray gun jammed?
Posted by dansong | March 3, 2008 8:28 PM
Dansong,
Or alternatively, you can take the easy road and just don't make threats especially when you're not man to see it through - take it like a man. You will heal. These are wise words.
Someone here should have told you.
Darkness 2008
Posted by Darkness | March 3, 2008 8:31 PM
When push comes to shove, your break water mmmmh. You made a complete fool of yourself in front of everyone. Next time when you want to threaten me with action, make sure you are serious. That will be all, run along - darkness 2008
Posted by Darkness | March 3, 2008 8:42 PM
Hey Darkness, looks like you need logic lessons concerning "IF" and "OTHERWISE" conditions and also the simple literal meaning of "All our communications are hereby terminated in the Singapore Angle." Ray gun jammed, say so lah.
Posted by dansong | March 3, 2008 8:46 PM
Why Singapore will never progress - there are people around with nothing better to do than to issue threats, ultimatums and crapflood Singapore Angle with the private personal agendas.
I don't care what they choose to call themselves. Darkness, whatever. It doesn't scare me. It labels them as childish, immature and a total reject. And I am an onlooker, judging *your actions*.
Posted by onlooker | March 4, 2008 8:38 AM
I believe if you do not respect people Dansong, then you do not deserve one ounce of respect. Guess what I am an onlooker, it was silly of u to have threatened them.
Posted by John McNeal | March 4, 2008 10:13 AM
Respect is important. Bernard Leong never respected them, it would not be wrong to say his attitude was always somewhere beneath contempt towards them. So you are not wholly to blame for this, there is a legacy. However where did you get the idea that you can just diss them off?
You speak dismissively of them, ray-guns jammed etc. You make fun of their games etc.
But have you read what they regularly write? If you do, then the hair at the back of your neck will stand, as you will quickly realize this are not a bunch of pin head kids here, they are dead serious people, definitely not the type that you can just disrespect and get away with.
You got mauled, but its a lesson.
"Treat other people the way you want to be treated yourself. Otherwise you have no cause to complain when they choose to disrespect you" GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
"y"
Posted by y | March 4, 2008 10:48 AM
John McNeal and y: I'll respect you if you don't crap in my garden or hurl abuse at my neighbor while in my garden. As for the so-called hair-stand-goose-pimple-effect writings of them the dead-serious people, I've read them and they are merely mediocre after I've spent half the time trying to get rid of the weird phrasing and childish ego-centric banter. I have not dissed them, and have in fact, agreed, publicly, with some things that they have said.
But that is the point, you come into my garden to crap, and then you demand I clean up your crap, attack me for invading your rights to crap in my garden and threaten me with more return crapping, and then conclude with saying that I did not respect your ass. Seriously, how am I suppose to treat such dead-serious people with dead seriousness?
I would rather be dead, so go ahead... tweedle dee, tweedle dum, zap me with your needle gun.
As long as you crap in my garden, I will diss you. And I won't delete your crap because they are monuments to your, well, crappiness. And please lah, don't have to mass-crap my 1 reply with 4 replies. It is simply uncool. My advice, go to your own toilet, sit down on your throne, do your business in private, think carefully about your response, and just have to reply to me once. When you flame me with 4 replies after my 1 wit, you look bad, like I've pushed a tiny button of yours and you are fuming and losing control.
Posted by dansong | March 4, 2008 12:15 PM
I've read some of Darkness and his brotherhood press's articles and some of them had infact came across as informed and intelligible, though I would have to sadly say as Han had mentioned, some of the comments had been seriously taken off tangent and over-reaction to perceived slights.
As any reasonable person here could possibly view the situation; so what if Bernard had chose not to include the brotherhood press within his Singapore blogosphere review? Its his work and thus his perogative. If Darkness, you could not accept it as a reviewable, reasonable scholarly work, so be it, accept it and move on. Write your own review if you will, but do forgo the threats.
Respect is earned, not by issuing 48 hour ultimatums.
Regards,
Azmodeus
Posted by Azmodeus | March 6, 2008 1:07 AM
Azmodeus,
I am in charge of the com now.
Please read again. It was written in simple English. Darkness did not make any threats, he was merely defending one of our readers who made a comment. Please go and read again. Carefully this time.
We have a right to defend ourselves and this includes our readers.
On your second point, allow me to be very clear. If the decision centered on Darkness alone, he couldn't care. Trust me, I know Darkness better than all of you. He couldn't care.
However, it does not, what use is a leader, if he is not able to reflect the sentiments of his tribe? You can say he doesn't even have a choice. None of you gave him any options. No way to even retreat one step gracefully. You made it difficult for him on every turn. Impossible even. This is as good as it gets.
Gentlemen what do we have instead? Nothing. We could have collaborated, shared resources, wrote together even merged our two networks and channels. All of you could have learnt from us and we the same. But its all gone with the wind, that to me is the greatest tragedy as a reasonable man. Wasted opportunities.
Truth of the matter is by remaining silent every single one of you here never gave him even the chance to earn your respect.
I think it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. Cheers
Harphoon
Posted by Harphoon | March 6, 2008 8:53 AM
Hi Azmodeus, thanks for stating your reasonable point in the most reasonable manner, but I would rather not go off the point from my post to give any molecule of attention to the self-praising collective salesmen. They have been eyeing our neighborhood's real estate for quite a while, but each of us owners has our own way of rejecting their squatting, crapping and what not. I hope all the readers will understand, tempting as it may be, that I'd appreciate that we discuss my post since this is my garden and not start discussions about other subjects that will give the 'tribe' any attention, as naked as they may be and though they are all bark and no bite.
Harphoon, can you go into warp drive and get out of my garden. I don't like sleeping dogs in my garden who have no self control and jump up at any moment to bark like a crazed mongrel at my visitors or my neighbors. I didn't invite you nor did I pick you up from the longkang. Are you the one with the needle gun?
Posted by dansong | March 6, 2008 10:27 AM
Dansong, you have just shown us all how true Harphy Boy's words are. Well done Singapore Angle.
y
Posted by y | March 6, 2008 10:44 AM
"Harphoon, can you go into warp drive and get out of my garden. I don't like sleeping dogs in my garden who have no self control and jump up at any moment to bark like a crazed mongrel at my visitors or my neighbors. I didn't invite you nor did I pick you up from the longkang. Are you the one with the needle gun?"
Was that really necessary Dansong?
Are you speaking for all the writers in Singapore Angle when you accuse them of stealing real estate?
"They have been eyeing our neighborhood's real estate for quite a while, but each of us owners has our own way of rejecting their squatting, crapping and what not."
Dr Loy Huchien as this is your web site, can you please comment on the above? As a long time Singapore Angle reader, I believe I have a right to a reply. Do you agree with Dansong's accusation. Is Dansong speaking on behalf of all the writers here in the Singapore Angle?
I really cannot believe the way this has turned out. Really *shake head*
y
Posted by y | March 6, 2008 10:50 AM
y
1. I have no idea what you mean by saying that "As a long time Singapore Angle reader" you have a right to a reply". Where did such a right come from? Please don't take this in the wrong way--I'm genuinely puzzled. Nonetheless, since you do profess to be a long time reader, I would certainly be happy to comment--where possible:
2. This is not "my" website--I just happened to be the one who started it and do some maintenance work around here. As far as the agreement between the regular contributors go (and the explicit terms of each joining in the group, to boot), each speak for himself, as is also clearly indicated in that yellowish box on the right side bar attached to all of the pages, not to mention the About page, the inaugural post, and several other places.
3. Given #2, no one should assume that in saying whatever he said about "eyeing our neighborhood's real estate", Dan is speaking for any of the rest. Perhaps some of the others might agree, perhaps they might disagree, or perhaps, like myself, they might not care one way or other to have an opinion. I just don't know.
4. I'm also very puzzled as to why you of all people "really cannot believe the way this has turned out"--wasn't the entire kerfuffle started by your first comment on this thread? A comment that, in your own words, "well be an off-point" (since it refers to something that is really about ringisei and not Dan). Be as it may, it's too late to change the past now...
5. This will be my last comment regarding the issue. If you have further queries, feel free to email me at philoyhc-at-gmail.com (rather than distract from the discussion about specific points in Dan's piece). Unfortunately, because pressing duties call (think: pile of student papers to grade, visiting scholars to receive, talks to moderate, the usual, etc., etc.--your comment came just at the right time), I might not be able to reply immediately, though I will always try to reply eventually. Please do understand.
Best regards
(Add: Dan, my apologies for the 'intervention'. I trust all is well with you.)
Posted by Huichieh | March 6, 2008 11:47 AM
Good Day All,
I agree in part with Azmodeus. I also happen to enjoy reading the BP. Indeed it's stimulating. And I have even used many of their post to profile case studies for my students.
I find they are passionate in what they do, often obliging and even helpful to the extent of supplying even biblio's.
However I do not agree with the position they have taken with regards to Dr B. Leong, who I personally know to be a very note worthy person. I believe he just made an innocent over sight.
I would however like to say this Dr Loy as I gather you own and operate this site (correct me if I am wrong). I believe it is time for you to come into the picture and steward this matter. It has clearly gone out of control here.
As a professional. I draw the line between just having a tiff and banter and all out character assination. This is fast approaching the latter with Mr Dansong's last post at March 6, 2008 10:27 AM
I must insist that you desist from this. As I cannot see it serving any purpose. You see it is one thing to say the BP is unreasonable, but is quiet another to accuse them of stealing readers in the SA. Are you serious?
Neither do I consider it fair that Dansong seems to label anyone who even supports the BP as a mongrel and continues to insist that whatever they write amounts to rubbish. Or that they are even disruptive. On the contrary from what I and many have read, many of their post here and else where remains interesting, profound and in line with the discussion posted by the main article.
Even you yourself have debated with Darkness in your post concerning the subject of "apathy." May I respectfully ask whether you agree with what Dansong has said here concerning Dr Darkness?
I hope I will not be flamed for this. I did not want to interfere at first, but when I saw it going down this way. I could help but respond accordingly. I belong to no camp. I am merely stating the case as I see it. I believe you young people need to sit down and talk it over.
Best Wishes and please convey my warmest regards to the rest of the writers in the SA.
Dr Lim Teck Heng
Posted by Dr Lim Teck Heng | March 6, 2008 12:05 PM
Sigh... I was really hoping to go for my lunch break before my next class. But so as to be absolutely clear:
re: Dr Lim Teck Heng
1. "I gather you own and operate this site (correct me if I am wrong)"
Well, it all depends on what you mean by "own" and "operate the site". I "own" both the hosting space and domain name in the sense that they are registered and paid for under my name (though more than one contributed to the upkeep). I definitely do not "own" the site in any stronger sense than that. It's not "my" blog--it belongs to all of the regular contributors here--as soon as each join and until the person leaves. I'm quite sure I've mentioned this before and am not sure why this seems so difficult to understand.
2. "You see it is one thing to say the BP is unreasonable, but is quiet another to accuse them of stealing readers in the SA. Are you serious?"
Again, it's going to depend on what Dan actually means when he said that stuff about "real estate"--and you had best ask him directly. If what Dan meant is that someone is "stealing readers", then not only do I disagree with him, I would say to Dan: "You have to be kidding, right? We have so many readers that it's worth someone's trouble to 'steal' from us meh?! In any case, I thought they are supposed to have a much larger readership than us? What you say doesn't make any sense."
But I don't really think that that's what Dan meant--but it's best to ask him to clarify.
3. "Even you yourself have debated with Darkness in your post concerning the subject of "apathy." May I respectfully ask whether you agree with what Dansong has said here concerning Dr Darkness?"
Yes you may but I would prefer to answer you by email. The short version is this:
Dan is free to say whatever he wants to say about whoever in his own articles and on his own comment threads. It's his prerogative as is explicitly granted by our 'group constitution'--as it were (yes, there's a strong anarchistic strain to the way we do things). Just as I have a prerogative to do what I want in my own posts and threads. Here, it's between him and whoever (just as it was between ringisei, or BL, and whoever).
I have no personal beef in the issue at all. Why should I? Maybe older people such as yourself finds it hard to understand that I really couldn't care less, that I (and others, perhaps) might have this attitude of utter apathy, but let me respectfully beg that you try. More importantly, I beg that you make an attempt to understand that Singapore Angle is not some "collective" with a "united voice" but is explicitly structured with that anarchy built into our very constitution, as it were. Not only does no one around have the right to speak on behalf of another, no one has the obligation to do so as well.
Once again: If anyone has any further queries directed at me, feel free to email me at philoyhc-at-gmail.com rather than distract from the discussion about specific points in Dan's piece.
(ok, great, I have less than half an hour left to catch a quick lunch before class.)
Best regards
Posted by Huichieh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.singaporeangle.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 6, 2008 12:33 PM
I cannot believe this! Stealing readers! Eyeing real estate! Squatting and crapping!
Wah Wah Wah, you people in Singapore Angle have really gone too far. Firstly what is all this nonsense abt stealing readers? cant a person be both a SA and BP reader at once? You mean to say it is something like supporting a favorite football club?
Squatting and Crapping? I am sorry, again I dont see that, they write very often and they write well. I believe you can say anything of them, but that's one thing no one can deny.
Otherwise how did they get such a big readership?
I am not joking Dasong or SA or whoever you are, you have gone too far! As for the lack of leadership here, I once thought Darkness was exaggerating, now looking at this. I have to think again.
Again not a single writer spoke out.
He was right.
Posted by Green Rover | March 6, 2008 1:13 PM
Dr H.loy, "Not only does no one around have the right to speak on behalf of another" Posted by Huichieh | March 6, 2008 12:33 PM
Dasong, "They have been eyeing our neighborhood's real estate for quite a while, but each of us owners has our own way of rejecting their squatting, crapping and what not."Posted by dansong | March 6, 2008 10:27 AM
Conclusion: SA you are in one giant mess!
Posted by Green Rover | March 6, 2008 1:18 PM
y: you don't get it do you? What right of reply, that's a fictional right invented in Singapore among the political elites. Singapore Angle is not a corporate entity like The Economist or FEER; we are also not an organization, and I don't represent anyone except myself; we are a neighborhood -- since you really cannot understand, let me give you a simple analogy -- we are like Sesame Street (sunny day, everthing's a-ok), with lots of weird characters living in our own spaces and talking to each another and teaching each other and learning from good visitors how to count and how to recite the alphabet, just so that we can deepen our knowledge of the real world. I don't mind weird aliens, like the two-headed red-color horns-up-and-down monster that goes 'yup-yup-yup' -- they are cute and harmless AND they don't crap in my garden or scold my neighbors while in my garden.
Did I say you were 'stealing'? Eyeing, dear, it involves using the eyes not your hands... This is what I was responding to: "We could have collaborated, shared resources, wrote together even merged our two networks and channels." You have been eyeing the neighborhood's gardens and going into people's gardens to proclaim how great you are or to attack others for not knowing how great you are, seemingly expecting to be invited to stay in the gardens without asking in the first place. In any case, if you don't know, or perhaps you think it is beneath your status, you can contribute a guest article and if no one in the neighborhood object to it, you can occupy the guest-house and your own garden. But the brohood doesn't seem to want to exercise that option, instead you EYE my and other's real estate, come into my and other's gardens and emit lots of carbon monoxide.
Your original post is unnecessary, your friends' posts are unnecessary, you tribal chief's flames are also unnecessary, harphoon's bark is also unnecessary; in other words, all your crapping in my garden is unnecessary and offensive, so if you cannot take my unnecessary dismissal of your unnecessary weird and offensive talk, then get out of my garden. This is all completely unnecessary. BTW, if your skin is so thin you cannot take analogies, metaphors and dismissive sarcasm transforming analogies and metaphors that you yourself put forth, then, again, get out of my garden and get your own.
Dr Lim, a good day to you too. (1) I called no one a mongrel, I said that they were barking LIKE a crazed mongrel. Let me explain to you the reason for that piece of metaphor, it comes directly from Harphoon's use of the metaphor 'let sleeping dogs lie'. So if you want to take metaphors literally, I didn't call Harphoon a dog, he called himself a dog. Elementary English, Dr Lim. (2) As for your 'stealing' comment, please refer to the Secondary English explanation in the paragraph before the last. (3) If darkness or whoever wants to talk about the budget debate, foreign talents or limping Mas, which are the topics of my post, I would be most happy to discuss his points in a reasonable, civil and robust debate, like I do to everyone who does so. But if they are shouting at my neighbor and crapping in my garden, then that is a different thing altogether. How is it that this common-sense logic escaped you?
In any case, thank you for your civil tone, but please refer to this appeal of mine and try not to add to the barking: "I hope all the readers will understand, tempting as it may be, that I'd appreciate that we discuss my post since this is my garden and not start discussions about other subjects that will give the 'tribe' any attention, as naked as they may be and though they are all bark and no bite."
Sorry Loy, that I should inadvertently allow my lunch entertainment (I pack lah, the 'philosopher' room in the lounge too claustrophobic for me and the rest too crowded with students) to intrude into your lunch.
Posted by dansong | March 6, 2008 1:20 PM
Green rover. At last a name that makes some sense. Perhaps I can invite you to explain why you are green? It would greatly help Singapore become a sustainable green capitalist city-state, which is a topic that I discussed in the previous post. But don't feel obliged, only if you are interested in real problems in the real world.
On the readership of brohood thingy. What has that got to do with me? Are you trying to suggest that y, harphoon, darkness, friend of darkness, you and others are wearing brohood football jerseys to show me why you are squatting and crapping in my garden? That's why it is offensive, both the sight and the stench. As for them writing well, it seems you are just like the rest then, coming into my garden not to talk to me about the issues I raise but praising some weird outer-limits organization with self-absorbed childish banter. I tell you what, if I give you two claps, and just two claps, would you go away? *CLAP CLAP*. Or maybe you will get others to come in and crap too. Go ahead, the crap will just pile up for a nice monument. Gone too far? What are you going to do about it? Its 48 hours already, and the only ray I have seen is the sun peeking out on a strangely beautiful cloudy day.
Posted by dansong | March 6, 2008 1:32 PM
I don't wish to aggravate the situation further. I posted originally to relieve the pressure. I don't even know how it turned ugly. I really have no idea.
I think its best if we leave the matter as it is. I have requested the chronicler to institute comments control on all the SLF's to this site. Those of you wishing to post independently may do so on your private ISP. However, my hope is that all of you consider the issue of how productive that may be? And please do so without referencing the Brotherhood Press. I am not trying to censor anyone here. I am not even trying to tell you what you should or shouldn't do as a reader. However, I believe since I have taken over the com in Darkness place, it's only fair that I share with all of you, I don't have much experience in the field of leadership to be that confident of my decision, but I can well see that sometimes it is pointless to pursue a cause, if it makes the situation worse.
So all of you must help me.
We encourage all readers to read broadly and this includes the Singapore Angle along with many other sites. Many of the writers here write well and even have an association with me, scholarboy and astro. My feel is we can build bridges with these other writers. I believe we have much in common and I remain hopeful. It is publicly known I have never supported this anti- BL matter and I have even spoken out on it on 3 occasions. So there is scope to carve common ground. I remain ever hopeful.
Cheers and thank you Dansong and Mr Loy for allowing to make this post.
Harphoon.
Posted by Harphoon | March 6, 2008 2:44 PM
Yeah, why so fierce? Fight for what? I still think some commentors here are making a big deal out of imaginary slights. Just chill and relax people.
Posted by Han | March 6, 2008 3:20 PM
Thanks Harphoon, that is the most pleasant, reasonable, respectful and necessary post, and decision - my salute to you. I welcome you or anyone to engage me on the issues discussed in my post anytime. Otherwise, I wish your chronicler success and I hope that all would listen to your most sound advice. If I could give you a swig of my portwood-finish glenmorangie, I would. Cheers!
Posted by dansong | March 6, 2008 3:28 PM
Dansong - do you know why the $8000 income ceiling in the first place, and is it adjusted for inflation etc? Actually does anyone else know? What will be the rationale to increase the ceiling?
Posted by sgthink | March 7, 2008 1:54 AM
Dansong
One layman question.
Gst offset is one off and how could it offset the GST increase across the board for most lower group? GST is unlikely to come down in foreseeable future and so the effect is prolonged after the offset. It strange to advice to buy 'no frill or house brand' when it is much cheaper and it too has GST increase.
GST offset is not the solution when ppl is facing higher cost of living and uncertain job prospect as one ages and definitely no hope of seeing the any increase in income to cope with the perpetual increase in cost of living.
Why can't the government be truthful about the whole situation?
(Siteadmin: I've helped you delete the redundant comments, keeping the latest. Do remember to refresh your browser after posting to see your comments. All the best.)
Posted by sghome![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.singaporeangle.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 7, 2008 1:00 PM
Hey sgthink:
Thanks for the question, it led me to do a bit of digging in the digital newspaper archives. I believe the policy was already in place in the 1980s, if not earlier. For example, in 1989, the HDB replied to someone who ask for the same thing as many are asking today for the raising of the income ceiling: "We wish to reiterate that the purpose of setting an income ceiling of $4,000 is to ensure that only those who could not afford private housing are eligible for public housing" (ST 5/8/89). That year, income ceiling restrictions in the resale market were removed, so it applied only to first-time applicants. The ceiling was raised to 5k in 1990, 7k in 1992, 8k in 1994. This is for nuclear family, for extended family it is 12k. As you can see, there are a lot of changes between 1989-1994, where the ceiling was practically doubled. The question is why it is 'stuck' at 8k for over a decade and still stuck? Average household income has risen from 3k in 1990 to 4.9k in 2000. In 1990, 4.2% of households earn above 8k, in 2000 it is 16.3%.
The policy justification is a tad tautological, as the afford-ability of private housing (the market for private housing) is dependent in part on the HDB income ceiling. But then complainants actually have no ground to stand on as they have access to the public housing resale market. So the complaints are really directed at not having access to government subsidies (subsidized first new flat). This complaint I have no sympathy with, since I am of the view that government subsidies should not be equally given out, but in a 'progressive' manner to those who need it more. However, one must also recognize that the complaints are getting louder in part because (1) rising private property prices due to the foreign talent influx have a increasingly real impact on the middle classes and (2) if no real impact, it is a symbol seized on by the middle class to express their increasingly competitive position in the globalized labor market (their way of dealing with their ghosts). I think it is more (2) than (1), and though I understand why, I am not sympathetic.
Posted by dansong | March 7, 2008 1:19 PM
Hey sghome, I'm no expert myself, just a political busybody and a concerned citizen in this aspect (my professional specialization is on other topics). Indeed, the GST offset is one-off and not a solution, I don't think it is intended to be. It is meant to 'ease' people in the transition to 7%, the sudden rise of costs. It may also be interpreted as a political move to placate the middle class, especially those in the lower ends of the middle income band. Now, for the lower income groups, the Workfare programme and other subsidies and allowances that will be funded by the GST proceeds are the long-term, not one-off solution.
If you are talking about the middle class, who will only have the one-off GST offset, then true, there is no 'solution', but what is the 'problem' in the first place? A higher cost of living is not a social problem per se; though it may be a political problem for the PAP. A higher cost of living becomes a social problem when a group cannot afford basic subsistence goods (food, drinks, basic medical care, transportation, housing etc.) and everyday goods for a considerably comfortable life in Singapore (24-hour electricity, gas, sanitation services and other secondary goods), and this group is the lower income group, which would be helped by programmes funded by the GST increase. Yes, the middle class will face higher cost of living because of inflation, lower job prospects because of foreign talent competition, but this doesn't mean it is a problem.
It is (1) not the government's duty to provide a good life for us, but (2) it is the government's duty to provide the optimal and equal conditions in which we can achieve a good life through our own ability and labor. I am saying that the budgetary policies so far is in line with (1) and that the complaints and criticisms by the middle class of budgetary policies are wrong because they expect otherwise for (1) (that is, they expect the government to provide a good life). I am also saying that the policies are somewhat in line with (2) by focusing aid and welfare on the lower income groups. We should be critical of policies if (1) the government intrudes into our private life or favor a certain group by trying to provide a good life for us or the certain group, (2) the government is creating less-than-optimal and unequal conditions for achieving the good life.
Posted by dansong | March 7, 2008 2:03 PM
Hi Dan,
It's been a while -- suffice to note that the more things change, and more things stay the same, online or offline.
On MSK, I wonder how it is that it took our beloved MM to say plainly that the whole fiasco was due to Complacency. Evidently our current team of ministerial scholars (whom we entrust our annual National Budget) had somehow overlooked this word in search for pithy epithets lol. In the light of recent events north of our border, may I be brazen (or daft) enough to suggest that Implosion From Within is a little more imminent if not inevitable (and so the conflict theorist in yours truly proclaims)...
I am however, somewhat troubled by the insinuation (I stand corrected, of course) that those born and bred on this island-nation have almost nothing to hope for, now that upward social mobility, read as HDB/Condo upgrading and its materialistic siblings, seem beyond from the reach of ordinary Singaporeans. How is it then that not too long ago we've had sky-high property prices? Can we truthfully place all the blame on 'externally-driven' inflation i.e. rich foreigners, or is it the national pastime to spend more than what one can reasonably afford, short- or long-term?
It was once said that Hope is the Currency of Politics, and if that is indeed true, the winds of change that have swept through our northern neighbour, and that may yet bring forth the first black US president, will by some divine intervention bring about a benign revolution on these shores. Logically though, indications are that such an event would not occur even in the distant future, chiefly because this island's inhabitants have somehow abandoned this Hope for the distractions of material trappings (so sweetly dangled by the powers-that-be).
However, all need not be lost, Hope also resides in future generations i.e. children, yet even these must be nurtured from within. It may not matter to yours truly personally that he never gets to experience Paradise on this island (or anywhere else for that matter); it is vital for the young to believe that they can indeed create Paradise for themselves, regardless whether they will bring this island with them. If this Hope is neutered instead of nurtured, out nation will cease to exist as we know it.
Hope has another incarnation in the form of External Change i.e. those who have arrived from other shores. In the absence of a politically active local populace, is it any wonder that we may soon be voting fellow citizens who may not be born on this island into our Parliament?
Being born and bred here myself, I have long subscribed to the notion that what constitutes nationhood goes beyond one's NRIC/passport; indeed patriotism (to resurrect an almost-extinct word) need not be confined to those who hold a pink piece of plastic. Nor should we be deluded into thinking that those who have left our shores have similarly abandoned Singapore in spirit. It is my Hope that this island continues to belong to those who consider themselves Singaporean, and not fall to those who would transact it for wealth or power.
Posted by spursfan | March 10, 2008 1:17 PM
Hey spursfan, long time indeed, good to hear from you.
I'm really not sure of the imminent implosion, as the party seems to be shuffling to the left to preemptively deal with the contradictions and social faultlines that have deepened in Singapore. The question, I think, is the balance of left and right, of keeping the fattened blue-cheese hamburgers (the corporate types) and wannabes (SMEs) happy, while the party leans leftward and pulls the rug from beneath the learning-rightward WP. BN's failure to address the deepening social inequality in Malaysia, which no longer strictly follow racial lines, is a major reason for the swing to the opposition alliance.
Oh, the last peak in property prices before it went pooped in 1997? It was a speculative bubble that was popped by the financial crisis. This time round, the demand seems real enough, though the super-speedy rise of rent and property prices suggests speculation and greedy landlords. When it comes to existentialist questions of life and hope, I tend to take an absurdist view. Life is meaningless, it is absurd, and thus I am now free to make it as meaningful as I want it to be. Now that we free of the great Dream, we can truly hope. "A moment comes when the creation ceases to be taken tragically; it is merely taken seriously. Then man is concerned with hope" - Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus.
Posted by dansong | March 11, 2008 1:16 AM
Dan,
Seems that shuffling is the word of the day... allow me to take it a little further with a soccer analogy. It's all well and good from the establishment's perspective to be seen as shuffling left, especially if the ultimate aim is to swerve right and score one more goal against those who may not agree with it lol...
WP appears to be down and out as far as I can tell, while recent indications are that businesses have been less than impressed by the lack of real assistance as far as cost-mitigation is concerned.
It is evident that our northern neighbours have dropped the ball; our island-nation is in danger of doing the same. Whisper it softly, but each passing day MSK enjoys freedom (while our citizens endure its poor imitation) he is one day closer towards executing a counter-strike, for all it takes to shatter our fragile peace is but one bomb.
That's not to say that recent governmental moves are not entertaining; on the contrary I've been rather enlivened. However these shuffles/step-overs come to naught because as the discerning spectator sees it, the ball is currently with the opposing team...
Nice quote on Hope btw, thanks for sharing a little more insight into what makes Dan tick ;-)
Posted by spursfan | March 11, 2008 8:44 AM
Since onlooker have been taken I shall become Curious.
Personally though I like Darkness comment blog about certain things even if I disagree with some of his views.
Some of the thing he say make sense and then there is this curious teddy guy (who remind me of a stalker) who like to impersonate others(go figure?).
on "Inflated Anti-Climax"
True: the GST is to make us suck up to the Rich China Guy who happen to immigrate here.
No, the GST is to help the poor "Rich"
on "Mobile Ghosts"
I actually made a funny comment once regarding PMET. But You see the scale is not balanced.Ignore the local talents long enough, local talents leave.This problem is ongoing(since 1998 quitter statement) and people have different reason to leave. Come the real long term effect when they start wondering why the local talent leave( and not return) and when the ghosts start leaving. They will start to propagate that the strayer/prodigal children are returning home. But What if those who have really high value skill( offered considerable incentive) decided to stay on in their respective host countries(place like France and Holland) where they really want to retain high value talents. The only recourse they have is that some of these high value talents family members are rooted here.
Finally on "Limping Suspense"
It's 3mth plus since this post originally appear.And they still haven't found what they are looking for.
Posted by Curious Onlooker: | June 25, 2008 12:30 AM