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?

WALKING BACK A HUNDRED THOUSAND MILES

Where will this road lead us

If we don’t talk and discuss?

We should try not to make a big fuss, 

But to release every drop of toxic pus.

Spare our usual parries and thrusts,

So that we won’t again miss the bus.

If everyone believes and everyone trusts,

We’ll gladly go where that road leads us.

OH GOD, WHAT A BEAUTIFUL WALL!

When love for country and duty call,
It's on his square shoulders that burdens fall.
It doesn't really matter how the enemies stall.
You know, it's going to be a beautiful wall!

A NEW DAY

Let this be the start of a new day

To hold our chins up come what may.

For it is time to make hay

And continue to keep evil at bay.

Though we know not the forces at play,

We can sweep our worries away.

If in the right place our hearts stay,

All our dues we will joyfully pay.

SECTION 377A - THE TOUGH QUESTIONS TO ASK
But, will there be honest answers from people who need to supply them?
https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/tough-questions-to-ask-about-section-377a

To resolve the issue of the viability of Section 377A, we all need to ask ourselves some hard questions and be honest with our answers.

First, should proponents of Section 377A continue to interfere in the private lives of others? In a secular society like Singapore, should they demand that others conform to their religious beliefs and moral codes? Should their objection to gay sex and the gay lifestyle be assisted by the law?

Second, should the opponents of Section 377A stop their repeal effort for the sake of not dividing the country? Should they bow down to the majority’s opinion and the strong emotional hostility from various religious groups? 

Or should they even bother as the Act is not being enforced anyway? 

Are they concerned only about social equality or are they planning to push further for a wider lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) agenda?

Third, does the Government think that keeping but not enforcing Section 377A is still tenable given the accusations of irrationality and contradiction? 

How should it respond to the fact that other former British colonies have already taken decisive action to repeal the same law? 

If the status quo is to be maintained, should all other forms of personal or private sexual, non-sexual, deviant and unconventional behaviour be also subjected to criminalisation without enforcement? 

Should its decision be dependent on the fear of incurring the wrath of religious or conservative people and the loss of their votes? Or should the priority be the restoration of rationality and respectability to our legal system by adhering to its original guiding principles and objectives?

And finally, as a repeal of 377A is not an endorsement or an encouragement of the LGBT lifestyle, all Singaporeans should ask themselves which option helps us to uphold the values of our society – to continue to criminalise gay sex as a sign of rejection of the LGBT lifestyle or to repeal Section 377A as a symbol of respect for an individual’s rights to privacy and personal autonomy?

Donald Trump on 9-11:
Inspiring words

“America will never ever submit to tyranny!”

“We will remember that free people will never be at the mercy of evil because our destiny is always in our hands!”

“America’s future is not written by our enemies. America’s future is written by our heroes!”

“... showed the whole world that no force on earth will ever conquer the American spirit.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k28jzRqz42w&feature=share

DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE

Part 6

WHAT IS GOODNESS?

Goodness is a human quality solely invented to describe the most desirable and most positive attributes of the essence of being human, putting us above animals and making us distinct from all other earthly living organisms.

Human beings, or Homo sapiens as a species, are biologically mammals and part of the animal kingdom. Therefore, we have a basal animal nature which also governs much of our behaviour, especially those that are driven by physiological instincts of thirst, hunger and sex; psychological instincts of survival, self-defence and territory; more complex instincts like maternal and social instincts; and others that manifest as self-centred and dominant behaviours. On the other hand, moral and ethical codes are artificial human constructs that we impose on ourselves because our higher mental functions trigger a need for validation of our special status in the living world. That’s how the concept of goodness is invented as a foundation for our “human” nature, which is distinguished from our animal nature.

So, the perennial debate as to whether our human nature is good or evil remains unresolved because of a widespread misunderstanding of the nature of “human nature” itself. In reality, “human nature” is, by definition, “good” because that is how we as humans conceived ourselves to be. The opposite of goodness, whether we call it badness or evil, is the label that we should rightfully put on other behaviours including those governed by our animal nature. Thus, in each of us, we have both a human and a animal nature, the proportion of which varies from individual to individual which can evolve to a more predominant human nature or devolve to a more pronounced animal nature over time even in the same individual.

There is no need for a God or the Devil (or Satan) to be the champions or instigators of goodness or evil in us. Unlike animals who have no need for religion or the supernatural, our human arrogance has made us devise narratives to justify the unnatural concepts of goodness and evil.

The parallel concepts of right and wrong are simply the mirror images of goodness and evil when the system is used to evaluate human actions. So, the post-modern rejection of the unequivocal opposition between right and wrong may unwittingly be correct, but for very different reasons.

In conclusion, our complex brains and the resultant higher intelligence necessitate the advent of exclusively human concepts of goodness and evil in order to rationalize our complicated lives.

DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE 

Part 5

WHAT IS BEAUTY?

Beauty is the kind of idiosyncratic perfection that glorifies its own existence.