NO COLLUSION

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/read-mueller-key-findings-doj/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2Fpolitics%2Flive-news%2Frobert-mueller-report-summary%2Findex.html

Independent Special Counsel Mr Robert Mueller’s confidential report, "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election" is out.

Attorney General William Barr stated in his Justice Department summary that “the Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

Or, in Mueller’s own words: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

So, it must be noted that in the nearly 2 years of independent investigations (almost as long as Trump’s administration so far), the Special Counsel “employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.” It is obviously a very thorough job.

If the Democrats want more investigations, you know that they are merely playing politics and they cannot be taken seriously.

"TERRORISM"

In the shadow of the Christchurch mosque massacres, let's ask ourselves some basic questions about "terrorism":

(1) Is there such a thing as "terrorism" as an enemy, a scourge or a phenomenon which we can fight and defeat? 

No! Terrorism is merely a tactic of deliberate violence and often killing of innocent civilians with a political motive. So, for each act of terror, there is a different primary motive and therefore needs its own way of dealing with it. It's a common means used by different groups for different ends. 

(2) Is "terrorism" the result of hatred between different racial or religious groups and therefore after each act of terror, the most important thing is to demonstrate our empathy and common acceptance of these different groups?

Again no! This is a false narrative seemingly promoted by politicians for their own reasons. Acts of terror are not committed for the aim of killing the victims out of hate, but to send a symbolic message by their perpetrators to their enemies. Their victims are not their intended enemies. Their real enemies are an entirely different group of people, usually a government.

(3) So, can terrorism be eradicated?

Sorry, no. "Terrorism" is a common means used by small, diverse and relatively powerless groups as a tactic of war against their much more powerful enemies for a variety of different grievances and causes. We can fight against the ends that they are pursuing if we find them objectionable or morally unacceptable, but we cannot dictate, persuade or even influence them not to use acts of terror to achieve their aims. As long as there are imbalanced wars between groups of vastly different strengths, "terrorism" will appeal to the much weaker groups as an effective weapon against their much stronger enemies and they will likely continue to use it.

(4) What can we as normal civilian non-combatants do to protect and prevent ourselves from being caught in the cross-fires of such "terrorism"?

Sadly, there is no foolproof way to keep ourselves out of harm"s way. We have to accept that "terrorism" is part of modern living. The only consolation is that the chance of dying in a terror act is infinitesimally smaller than say in a motor accident or a heart attack. If you had not hitherto encountered any terror attack, chances are you never will if you keep to your old routine.

IMPERTURBABLE

She stays, she leaves for another.

Whatever, it’s not a big bother.

Loving one but not the other,

Is a game we all play together.

Fortune rises, fortune falls.

Ignore the knocks and the calls

From crazy men in white overalls.

Stay mute within your four walls.

The cup holds things in equal measure,

Ever so slowly we sip with pleasure.

If we drink it like an eternal treasure,

Sharp sediments will surely injure.

”GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE” CRISIS IS NOW OFFICIALLY RUBBISH

https://youtu.be/kcxcZ8LEm2A

Lord Monckton and his team of mainstream scientists have now proven unchallenged and beyond doubt that the global warming scare (later deviously changed to the “climate change scare” when it was found that there was no actual warming for the best part of the last 2 decades) as pushed by the United Nations’ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is non-existent.

First, on the grounds of theoretical physics, they discovered that in the standard control theory equation that applies to all dynamical systems, including climate systems, the IPCC climatologists had erroneously omitted to include the sunshine input signal term called the Emission Temperature (heat contributed by the sun). This led to a gross miscalculation of the Feedback Factor. Supposed to be 0.116, the IPCC climatologists had wrongly inflated the number to 0.693. This has a major impact on their final predictions of the elevation of global temperature as the value of the Feedback Factor accounts for 85% of its uncertainty. The widely published average IPCC prediction of an elevation of global temperatures by 3.35K for every doubling of CO2 levels is wrong when the correct prediction should be only 1.15K (which does not present any problem or global threat).

Second, on empirical grounds, Lord Monckton’s team also showed the absence of a tropical mid troposphere hotspot having a warming rate 2-3 times that of the tropical surface 8-12 km below.  The presence of this hotspot is a pre-requisite if, and only if, man is the cause of global warming.

Third, on statistical grounds, based on an objective professional analysis, they proved that they have 95% confidence that their estimate of 1.15K elevation of global temperatures for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels is correct.

So, we can safely reassure everyone that there is no global warming or climate change crisis anywhere that will threaten our planet. Any change in global temperatures or climate may only  be mild and manageable and certainly, natural and not man-made or man-caused. If any authorities were to tell you otherwise, be wary of their political agendas for saying so.

IS THE 1962 WATER AGREEMENT BETWEEN SINGAPORE AND MALAYSIA FAIR?

Should it or can it be revised? 

One may be tempted to sympathise with Dr Mahathir that the price of raw water at 3 sen per 1,000 gallons is ridiculously cheap and outdated given how valuable water is and that the price was set in the Water Agreement back in 1962. 

One shouldn’t.

Water is a naturally occurring resource and it is only valuable if made drinkable and usable through its treatment. Time does not change this fact. Therefore, almost the whole of its value is created through such processing which is currently being done by Singapore.

Nevertheless, let’s examine Dr Mahathir’s case more closely.

If Malaysia sells 1000 gallons of raw river water to Singapore at RM0.03, but buys the same amount of treated water that costs Singapore RM2.40 to process at RM 0.50, then Malaysia would have benefited by RM30,880 daily for the 16 million gallons of treated water that Malaysia buys from Singapore every day. Malaysia also makes another RM7,020 from selling the other 234 million gallons of raw water to Singapore daily. So, the 1962 Water Agreement benefits Malaysia by RM37,900 daily. So, why is Dr Mahathir seemingly unhappy with this arrangement?

Johor sells drinkable water to its own citizens at RM3.95 per 1,000 gallons. Assuming that all 16 million gallons bought at a net cost of RM0.47 per 1,000 gallons is sold at that price, it will earn RM55,680 from its own citizens daily. Again, why is Dr Mahathir unhappy?

I think he is unhappy because Johor actually sells raw water at RM0.50 per 1,000 gallons to Malacca and he thinks that is now the market price for raw water. So, by selling it at RM0.03 per 1000 gallons to Singapore, Malaysia is losing RM109,980 for the net sale of the 234 million gallons at below-market price. If the market price of raw water is really RM0.50 per 1,000 gallons, then Johor will lose RM16,400 daily from its water trade with Singapore and its own citizens.

The trouble with that analysis is that the water transaction between Johor and Malacca is one that is between two Malaysian states and therefore the difference is akin to money transferring  from the left pocket to the right pocket of Malaysia. That is hardly indicative of a true market price.

Also, if Singapore buys raw water at RM0.50 per 1000 gallons from Johor and sells treated water back at the same price, then Singapore would have done expensive water treatment for 16 million gallons of water for free and lose RM38,400 daily. That cannot be. Surely, if Malaysia increases the cost of raw water it sells to Singapore, obviously, Singapore will also have to increase its selling price of treated water given that raw water will now cost RM2.90 per 1,000 gallons to buy and process. 

So, assuming that both parties agree to revise the 1962 Water Agreement, the real question is whether the much higher resultant price of treated water charged by Singapore will be acceptable to both Mr Mahathir and our own Singapore citizens. If the answer is no, it is wiser to leave that Agreement alone.

Yet, Johor’s intention to unilaterally revise the 1962 Water Agreement seems to be motivated by its secret plan to stop its dependence on Singapore for treated water. It appears to have developed its own capacity to treat water. Its suggestion to raise the selling price of raw water to RM0.50 per 1000 gallons appears to be a ploy to move things in that direction. 

Other than crying foul about Malaysia not honouring the sanctity of international agreements, what can Singapore do to ensure its water security and not be at the mercy of the arbitrary pricing of raw Malaysian water? Are water agreements really sacred and truly untouchable?