25 April, 2012

copied from itsnowandthen.wordpress.com

In Singapore’s Society its was always said that we need the 5C
1. Cash
2. Credit card
3. Condominium
4. Car
5. Country Club membership
However often people forgotten one of the most important C we must all have not only for our life but our heart.
Copied from itsnowandthen.wordpress.com

Five practices that take small groups beyond polite sharing to the disciplines that change lives.
by John Ortberg
God has entrusted us with his most precious treasure—people. He asks us to shepherd and mold them into strong disciples, with brave faith, and good character. I would not give my life to any church that was not serious about this calling—the transformation of human beings. God has decided, for his own good reasons, that people are not transformed outside of community.
Years ago, while on vacation, I was going to fix something on the grill. I made a pile of charcoal, I poured a few gallons of lighter fluid over them, and I started the fire. My son was just fascinated by fire, as most young boys are. He asked what I was doing, and I told him.
“There’s something about the way these little briquettes are constructed that when you put them together, the fire glows and they get real hot. And if you isolate one it cools off quickly. It loses the fire. But when they stick together, there’s fire, because they feed off each other. God designed them to work that way.”
This fits what Dallas Willard has said about the Christian life: “Personalities united can contain more of God and sustain the force of his greater presence better than scattered individuals.” Think about that. Personalities united—people in community—contain more of God and his transforming power than isolated individuals. We should not be surprised that transformation requires community; it’s how God designed us.
Confession: remove the masks
We all wear masks. We hide from each other. It’s part of our fallenness. That is why one of the most formative practices in a small group is confession. Confession is the appropriate disclosure of my brokenness, temptations, sin, and victories for the purpose of healing, forgiveness, and spiritual growth. Without confession we are a community hiding from the truth.
Without confession we cannot accomplish our God-given calling to transform people.
Throughout church history, whenever God has done great things, confession has always been present. In the church, confession must be freely offered—never manipulated. A small group serious about transformation should be moving into ever deeper confession—removing masks to reveal our core feelings and fears, sins we still struggle with, and areas where we’re not growing.
To see real transformation, small groups must begin with reality. By removing our masks through the discipline of confession, we acknowledge the reality of who we are and open ourselves to God’s transforming work.
Application: look in the mirror
James 1:23 says, “Those who listen to the word, but do not do what it says, are like people who look at their faces in the mirror, and after looking at themselves, go away and immediately forget what they look like.” A small group is a place for people to look into the mirror, discover who they are, and then ask, “How do I apply God’s word to my life as it really is?”
Accountability: stand on the scale
I have made certain commitments about food and exercise in my life, but how serious I am about those commitments is difficult to determine without measuring my progress. A scale serves as a tool of accountability for me. Am I achieving my goal, or am I missing it? Ultimately the scale reveals how effective I have been in living up to my commitment.
Small groups are the place for people to get on the scale and reveal how intentional they have been to pursue transformation into the image of Christ. William Paulson writes, “It is unlikely that we will deepen our relationship with God in a casual or haphazard manner.” I think he understates it. People do not drift into full devotion to Christ. People do not drift into becoming loving, joy-filled, patient, winsome, world changers. It requires intention and effort.
But the default mode of the human heart is to drift. If a person has experienced real transformation, it’s typically because someone else has cared enough to say, “I want you to live God’s way, and I want to help you know if you are serious about it.”
We need to make some key decisions on our journey of transformation: what are my commitments about prayer, about Scripture, about my use of money, about evangelism, about servanthood, about truth? Keeping these commitments requires a community of accountability to serve as a scale revealing how we’re achieving our goals or missing them.
During the spiritual revolutions of 18th century England, the Wesleyan movement thrived on small groups. When those groups originally formed, they existed to hold people accountable to their commitments as followers of Christ. They gathered in little bands to ask one another how their obedience to Christ was going. History notes, however, that over the decades the focus of the groups shifted from accountability to vague “sharing,” in the process the power of the revival was lost, and eventually the groups died out.
Guidance: follow the map
When people need directions to a place they have never been, they use a map. Too often when people have major life-forming decisions to make, they make them alone.
In every church there are people facing decisions about vocations, ministry involvement, finances, relocation, and relationships. How sad if they make these decisions without the benefit of community. Their decisions may be impulsive, emotional, based on too little information. The result is too many broken lives.
Encouragement: embrace each other
A hug is a gesture of love and encouragement. An embrace represents what we all need from a community of transformation. We need to know that someone is committed to us and loves us. That cannot happen when we are alone, and it cannot happen in a large gathering. It’s going to happen through smaller communities.
Today small groups have the privilege of loving and accepting human beings for whom Christ gave his life. In these groups we can supply the love, encouragement, and embrace people need to continue their journey of transformation.
A long time ago I decided I wanted to talk to someone honestly about my temptations, where I had messed up. I wanted to practice the discipline of confession. So I asked my friend Rick if we could meet. By that time, I had known him for about ten years.
When we sat down together, I told him everything there was to tell about me—all of the darkest stuff and everything I felt the most embarrassed about.
When I got to the end my confession, I could barely look up at him. When I finally did, Rick looked me in the eyes and said, “John, I have never loved you more than I love you right now.”
Those words were so powerful; they felt so good that I wanted to make up more bad stuff to tell him. To have someone know everything about me and still love me was truly life giving.
That kind of love is what we ultimately need in small groups to transform lives. We can make small groups so complex and difficult, we can build the perfect small group strategy, but if we do not have the love of Christ present, we are not really engaged in transforming people into his likeness.
Spiritual formation in community is mostly about loving people, and that is something we can do.
 Copied from itsnowandthen.wordpress.com

i’ve been wanting to find this illustration after hearing it on a preach one night… so here it is, cut and pasted from Hells Best Kept Secret, by Ray Comfort…
Two men are seated in a plane. The first is given a parachute and told to put is on as it would improve his flight. He’s a little skeptical at first because he can’t see how wearing a parachute in a plane could possibly improve the flight. After a time he decides to experiment and see if the claim is true. As he puts it on he notices the weight of it upon his shoulders and he finds that he has difficulty in sitting upright. However, he consoles himself with the fact that he was told the parachute would improve the flight. So, he decides to give the thing a little time. As he waits he notices that some of the other passengers are laughing at him, because he’s wearing a parachute in a plane. He begins to feel somewhat humiliated. As they begin to point and laugh at him and he can stand it no longer, he slinks in his seat, unstraps the parachute, and throws it to the floor. Disillusionment and bitterness fill his heart, because, as far as he was concerned, he was told an outright lie.
The second man is given a parachute, but listen to what he’s told. He’s told to put it on because at any moment he’d be jumping 25,000 feet out of the plane. He gratefully puts the parachute on; he doesn’t notice the weight of it upon his shoulders, nor that he can’t sit upright. His mind is consumed with the thought of what would happen to him if he jumped without that parachute.
Let’s analyze the motive and the result of each passenger’s experience. The first man’s motive for putting the parachute on was solely to improve his flight. The result of his experience was that he was humiliated by the passengers; he was disillusioned and somewhat embittered against those who gave him the parachute. As far as he’s concerned it’ll be a long time before anyone gets one of those things on his back again. The second man put the parachute on solely to escape the jump to come, and because of his knowledge of what would happen to him without it, he has a deep-rooted joy and peace in his heart knowing that he’s saved from sure death. This knowledge gives him the ability to withstand the mockery of the other passengers. His attitude towards those who gave him the parachute is one of heart-felt gratitude.
Now listen to what the modern gospel says. It says, “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ. He’ll give you love, joy, peace, fulfillment, and lasting happiness.” In other words, “Jesus will improve your flight.” So the sinner responds, and in an experimental fashion, puts on the Savior to see if the claims are true. And what does he get? The promised temptation, tribulation, and persecution. The other passengers mock him. So what does he do? He takes off the Lord Jesus Christ, he’s offended for the word’s sake (Mark 4:17), he’s disillusioned and somewhat embittered, and quite rightly so. He was promised peace, joy, love, fulfillment, and lasting happiness, and all he got were trials and humiliation. His bitterness is directed toward those who gave him the so-called “good news”. His latter end becomes worse than the first: another inoculated and bitter backslider.
Saints, instead of preaching that Jesus improves the flight, we should be warning the passengers they’re going have to jump out of the plane. That it’s “appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). And when a sinner understands the horrific consequences of breaking God’s law, then he will flee to the Savior solely to escape the wrath that’s to come. And if we’re true and faithful witnesses, that’s what we’ll be preaching. That there is wrath to come; that God “commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Why? “Because He has appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness” (vs. 31). You see, the issue isn’t one of happiness, but one of righteousness. It doesn’t matter how happy a sinner is, how much he’s enjoying “the pleasures of sin for a season” (Heb. 11:25). Without the righteousness of Christ, he’ll perish on the day of wrath. “Riches profit not on the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death” (Prov. 11:4). Peace and joy are legitimate fruits of salvation, but it’s not legitimate to use these fruits as a draw card for salvation. If we continue to do so, sinners will respond with an impure motive lacking repentance.
Now, can you remember why the second passenger had joy and peace in his heart? It was because he knew that parachute was going to save him from sure death. And as a believer, I have, as Paul says, “joy and peace in believing” (Rom. 15:13), because I know that the righteousness of Christ is going to deliver me from the wrath that’s to come.
Now with that thought in mind, let’s take a close look at an incident on board the plane. We have a brand new stewardess. She’s carrying a tray of boiling hot coffee. It’s her first day; she wants to leave an impression on the passengers, and she certainly does. Because as she’s walking down the aisle, she trips over someone’s foot and slops that boiling hot coffee all over the lap of our second passenger. Now what’s his reaction as that boiling liquid hits his tender flesh? Does he go, “Ssssfffff! Man that hurt”? Mmm-hhh. He feels the pain. But then does he rip the parachute from his shoulders, throw it to the floor and say, “The stupid parachute!”? No. Why should he? He didn’t put the parachute on for a better flight. He put it on to save him from the jump to come. If anything, the hot coffee incident causes him to cling tighter to the parachute and even look forward to the jump.
Now if you and I have put on the Lord Jesus Christ for the right motive, to flee from the wrath that’s to come, when tribulation strikes, when the flight gets bumpy, we won’t get angry at God; we won’t lose our joy and peace. Why should we? We didn’t come to Jesus for a happy lifestyle: we came to flee from the wrath that’s to come. And if anything, tribulation drives the true believer closer to the Savior. And sadly we have literally multitudes of professing Christians who lose their joy and peace when the flight gets bumpy. Why? They’re the product of a man-centered gospel. They came lacking repentance, without which you can’t be saved.
Did you feel the mountains tremble?
Did you hear the oceans roar?
When the people rose to sing of
Jesus Christ the risen one

Did you feel the people tremble?
Did you hear the singers roar?
When the lost began to sing of
Jesus Christ the risen one

And we can see that God you're moving
A mighty river through the nations
And young and old will turn to Jesus
Fling wide your heavenly gates
Prepare the way of the risen Lord

Open up the doors and let the music play
Let the streets resound with singing
Songs that bring your hope
Songs that bring your joy
Dancers who dance upon injustice

Did you feel the darkness tremble?
When all the saints join in one song
And all the streams flow as one river
To wash away our brokeness

And here we see that God you're moving
A time of Jubilee is coming
When young and old return to Jesus
Fling wide your heavenly gates
Prepare the way of the risen Lord


Here I am. Humbled by your majesty.....
Here I am. Knowing I'm a sinful man.
Covered by the blood of the lamb....
I love you Jesus.
Majesty, Majesty,
Your grace is for me just as i am, Empty handed but alive in your hands.

You are good to me O God. Thank you for everything you have given to me.
I will lay my life down as an offering to you. Amen.
Now, to read the bible.

24 April, 2012

Repost from owlcityblog.com

Repost from owlcityblog.com


On April 16th, 2012 by Adam Young
No one has yet believed in God and the kingdom of God, no one has yet heard about the realm of the resurrected and not been homesick from that hour, waiting and looking forward to being released from bodily existence.
Whether we are young or old makes no difference. What are twenty or thirty or fifty years in the sight of God? And which of us knows how near he or she may already be to the goal? That life only really begins when it ends here on earth, that all that is here is only the prologue before the curtain goes up — that is for young and old alike to think about. Why are we so afraid when we think about death? Death is only dreadful for those who live in dread and fear of it. Death is not wild and terrible, if only we can be still and hold fast to God’s Word. Death is not bitter if we have not become bitter ourselves. Death is grace, the greatest gift of grace that God gives to people who believe in him. Death is mild, death is sweet and gentle; it beckons to us with heavenly power if only we realize that it is the gateway to our homeland, the tabernacle of joy, the everlasting kingdom of peace.
How do we know that dying is so dreadful? Who knows whether in our human fear and anguish we are only shivering and shuddering at the most glorious, heavenly, blessed event in the world?
Death is hell and night and cold if it is not transformed by our faith. But that is just what is so marvelous, that we can transform death.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Repost from OWL CITY BLOG owlcityblog.com

Repost from OWL CITY BLOG owlcityblog.com

Rachel Joy Scott (August 5, 1981 – April 20, 1999) was the first victim of the Columbine High School massacre, which claimed the lives of 12 students, one teacher and the two perpetrators, in one of the deadliest high school shooting in United States history. Rachel was shot while eating lunch with a friend on the lawn outside the school’s library. She was killed by Eric Harris with multiple gunshot wounds to her head, chest, arm, and leg. After the killings, her car was turned into a flower shrouded memorial in the adjacent Clement Park after being moved from the school’s parking lot by grieving students. A long chain link fence was installed for mourners to attach teddy bears, letters and other gifts. Rachel’s younger brother, Craig, was also at the school at the time. He was in the library where most of the killings took place. He survived unharmed.

Early news reports said that one of the gunmen, after having first shot Rachel in her leg, picked her up by her hair and asked the wounded girl if she still believed in God, and that she had answered “You know I do.” She believed in God all her life. Her response provoked a second, fatal shot to her head at point-blank range. This was based on videotapes made by the teenage perpetrators in which they are said to mock Rachel by name for her beliefs. — Wikipedia

Thank you for inspiring me to go out of my way to show compassion to other people no matter what life deals my way. You’ve truly started a chain reaction. God bless you, Rachel.

Majesty - delirious?

Here I am humbled by your Majesty
Covered by your grace so free
Here I am, knowing I'm a sinful man
Covered by the blood of the Lamb
Now I've found the greatest love of all is mine
Since you laid down your life
The greatest sacrifice
Majesty, Majesty
Your grace has found me just as I am
Empty handed, but alive in your hands
Majesty, Majesty
Forever I am changed by your love
In the presence of your Majesty
Here I am humbled by the love that you give
Forgiven so that I can forgive
Here I stand, knowing that I'm your desire
Sanctified by glory and fire
Now I've found the greatest love of all is mine
Since you laid down your life
The greatest sacrifice
 God you are all I need. You are awesome and more than enough.

23 April, 2012

God, I want to settle everything now. It is hard but i will do it. Lord dont lose faith in me. Use me Lord.

19 April, 2012

Arghhhh.... Hahaha, have no idea what to post. 
Currently doing a project, but taking a break, so yea, here I am blogging.
Will Blog something more interesting soon. Hahaha.(:

12 April, 2012

Meaningful Quotes

You can't just paint over rust, you've got to cut it out. To learn, sometimes we need to unlearn, then relearn.
-Jurgen Matthesius
What you do not forgive in your heart, you reproduce in your life.
-Jurgen Matthesius
The only constant in life is change.
The teacher appears when the student is ready. 
Watch your thoughts, for they become words. 
Watch your words, for they become actions. 
Watch your actions for they become habits. 
Watch your habits, for they become character. 
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
Pray to God, but keep rowing towards the shore.
heeheehee. esp that. tells me not to worry.
Yes i worry about life and EVERYTHINGGGG.
Close frriends know that. Closer friends think I'm freaking crazy.
^ exactly
Ok thats all for now, but be back for more.
ps, com need shut down and restart to update stuff. so see you guys soon!

11 April, 2012


There's a cemetery plot, somewhere out there, waiting for your corpse. Regardless of who and where you are, you will one day be quite dead. And in 100 years, chances are no one will remember your name—including the people carrying your genes in their bloodstreams. We see our mortal future in everything from the natural forces that sap our hair color to the bacteria that eventually grind our bodies to a maggoty pulp. The universe rolls around us frenetically, and, in every single case, it eventually kills us.
That's not just a matter of our individual destinies. If we are honest, the world around us seems pretty good proof that the gospel isn't true. Doesn't the cosmos seem to be just as the nihilists describe it: a bloody, merciless machine in which power, not goodness or beauty, is ultimate? What, then, is the meaning of life? What's the purpose of history? If it's all heading nowhere, then what difference at all does my existence make?
The gospel of the kingdom doesn't shy away from such questions, but our preaching tends to swerve around the answers it gives. Often we Christians start our gospel proclamation with triumph over sin. Fair enough: The gospel of Christ is indeed the reversal of sin, and of death and hell. But without a broader context, such teaching can treat Christ as a means to an end, a step from the alpha of Eden to the omega of heaven. In a truly Christian vision of the kingdom of God, though, Jesus of Nazareth isn't a hoop we jump through to extend our lives into eternity. Jesus is the kingdom of God in person. As such, he is the meaning of life, the goal of history, and the pattern of the future. The gospel of the kingdom starts and ends with the announcement that God has made Jesus the emperor—and that he plans to bend the cosmos to fit Jesus' agenda, not the other way around.
Jesus and his apostles announced, with the onset of the kingdom of God, an unveiled "mystery," one that explained the "whys" of everything in the universe. The Hebrew Scriptures revealed that the world was called together by God's Word. But the mystery of the kingdom shows us that this Word is personal, taking on flesh and dwelling among us (John 1:1-18). Every culture has experienced the wildness of sexual desire, and sought to safeguard that desire in some form of marriage. Genesis tells us this was "from the beginning," but the mystery of the kingdom shows us why the drive toward "one-flesh" union is so wild and dynamic. It's an icon, a picture ahead of time, of the unity between Christ and his church (Eph. 5:21-33).
Announcing the Kingdom
Despite our mind-boggling explorations into the telescopic and the microscopic, much of the cosmos remains a mystery. Yet there seems to be some rhythm to it. The Christian gospel says the universe we inhabit is designed according to the blueprint of God's purpose in Jesus Christ. Paul tells the Colossian church, speaking of Jesus, that "all things have been created through him and for him" and that "in him all things hold together" (Col. 1:16-17).
With Jesus at the foundation of God's purposes, we see why the Scriptures are so often a depressing story of collapsing kingdoms. Adam and Eve are designed to be king and queen of the universe, but they surrender their servant-dominion to a reptilian invader. The Israelites are to be a "light to the nations," but they repeatedly fall toward the way of death. Israel's kings step forward with power and anointing, but even the best of them succumb to the grave. By the time the story arrives in Bethlehem, the throne of David is occupied by a puppet of a pagan empire. No wonder that star in the sky so troubled the powers-that-were.

10 April, 2012

hope you enjoy ir.
Yes I know this is 18 Jan but hey, He's good okay.

Mr Speaker Sir, For a country with a voting population of only 2.1m citizens, Ministerial salaries in Singapore are by far, the highest in the world. It should therefore come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber that the debate surrounding ministerial salaries are also the most emotive anywhere in the world as well. In the minds of many citizens, Ministers cannot make mistakes. The connection is logical. If you pay top-dollar, you expect top performance.
Over the Christmas period, I took the opportunity to ask friends and relatives what they would consider to be a fair wage to pay an MP and Minister in Singapore. Although this was not a scientific exercise by any stretch, on average, the figure for an MP hovered around the $10,000 mark, while the total wage for a Minister, excluding his or her MP’s salary ranged from $30,000 to $50,000, bonuses included. As reinforced by the committee, with figures such as these, no Minister would need to worry about his ability to meet the financial needs of his family or have to face a drastic reduction in his standard of living.
Many who I spoke to were shocked that Ministers received a pension. If anything, public servants who have for the longest time deserved a pension are our Division 3 and 4 civil servants, some of whom draw a salary around the $1500 a month mark. But paradoxically, even years after the private sector removed this anachronism; the PAP government persisted in retaining it for their high flyers until the committee’s recommendations. Once again, the emotive reaction of Singaporeans is completely logical and understandable.
A few months ago, I asked via a PQ, the monetary amount each outgoing minister in the last cabinet could expect to receive in pension. The Prime Minister however gave an answer to another question, one that was not asked, instead explaining how pensions are calculated. The reluctance to reveal hard numbers provides yet another glimpse into the reasons behind the emotive reaction of Singaporeans to ministerial salaries. I can confidently say that this government will never release how much each retiring Minister received in pension, although I hope I will be proved wrong, especially since one PAP MP announced on Monday that Ministerial salaries are published. Well, following that logic we should expect pensions to be published as well.
Mr Speaker Sir, the political landscape today is anchored by expectations of significantly higher levels of transparency and accountability. To that end the committee must be commended for its decision to remove the very concept of a pension for ministers. In my mind, this has been an epochal recommendation made by Mr Gerard Ee’s committee and I hope Singaporeans duly credit them for it. They did not just remove pensions for Ministers – they have set a benchmark for good governance, accountability and transparency in public service. The Workers’ Party welcomes this development as the high-water mark of the committee’s recommendations.
It is in this spirit of good governance, transparency and accountability that the WP proposes a simple, straightforward formula by which to determine political salaries. Unlike as reported by the Straits Times today, specifically one headline which read “WP proposals on pay not that different”, the principles behind the Workers’ Party’s proposals differ significantly. And the reason for these differences were perhaps best iterated by DPM Teo on the first day of this debate – because it’s the principles behind the numbers that matter.
Where the committee could have done much better was to remove this concept of pegging Ministerial salaries to the top 1000 in Singapore. It also persisted in pegging MP salaries to a percentage of the Administrative Service super scale salary (this should read MR4 level; apology tendered in parliament for this oversight. Nonetheless the MR4 salary numbers remain very close to Administrative Service salary numbers), yet another vestige of elitism that should not be extended to the political realm. My erstwhile colleague Mr Chen Show Mao made the point about pegging political salaries with the rank and file of the civil service in his speech on the first day – at the MX9 level. But no PAP MP wanted to go there. It is apparent that the PAP are fine with pegging salaries to an elite core of individuals, many of whom discerning Singaporeans note, are also cultivated for PAP political office. In the mind of these discerning Singaporeans, the PAP Ministerial selection process is clear – you have been selected to be a minister first, before becoming an MP.
Two PAP MPs tried to address this Administrative Service elephant in the Committee’s report. One of them managed to scratch the surface of the issue – expectedly, that MP was the veritable conscience of the PAP – Ms Denise Phua. The other was Mr Lim Biow Chuan. If I heard Ms Phua correctly she wanted the Admin service salaries to be reduced, in line with the spirit of the recommendations of Mr Ee’s committee. Singaporeans should know why she felt that way. What’s so special about this elite core of 300-odd Admin Service scholars out of the 127,000 strong civil service, a mere 0.236% of all civil servants – and why is the MP salary pegged to a percentage of their salaries, and why not to ordinary civil servants?
Mr Speaker Sir, I started off my speech by referring to how much emotion political salaries generate in Singapore. The essence of the WP’s proposals – specifically the delinkage of MP salary to some percentage of the Admin Service and the top 1000 peg for Ministers, was precisely formulated by the Workers’ Party to remove this emotion from any debate on ministerial salaries – and to remove the overbearing odour of elitism from political office. And it is the Workers’ Party’s contention that when you remove the connection to elitism, you take emotive element out of the debate.
In retaining the unmistakable connection to the top 1000 and to the Administrative Service, the committee has missed an opportunity to fundamentally address the emotive reaction of Singaporeans to political salaries. In the Straits Times today, Review Editor Ms Chua Mui Hoong wrote (I quote) “that the issue of ministerial salaries will continue to draw heated disagreement. The formula will be tweaked again, and a future PM will have to stand up in Parliament and seek the support of MPs and Singaporeans for yet another round of changes.” (unquote). If this comes to pass, it would indeed be a most unfortunate eventuality. Like my party colleagues, I trawled the Hansard for a record of the previous debates on political salaries. Nothing this government has said over the last three days signalled a real shift in the mindset of how to peg political salaries. Substantively, it certainly looks like it is business as usual.
The Workers’ Party proposed the MP peg to the MX9 level – the starting salary of entry-grade senior civil servants to the rank and file civil service, not the elite Administrative Service, where an officer at the age of 32 should expect to receive around $400,000 a year depending on bonuses. If the government pegs political salaries at the rank and file level, a level the average Singaporean can aspire to, you remind all political aspirants what it means to be a servant-leader, and you unmistakably inject substantive empathy into a nation’s political culture.
Ministerial salaries come next, and like many developed countries around the world you choose a suitable multiple that is politically acceptable to Singaporeans. We opine that Singaporeans can be persuaded by the reasoning behind our numbers. While they may be close to the committee’s proposal, the Workers’ Party certainly expects a reality check on the 13.5 months bonus a Minister can receive a figure that flies in the face of the committee’s commitment to clean salaries. For the record – standing to secure a bonus of half your salary can hardly be expressed as a clean salary. In monetary terms, it is akin to the perks some MPs in other countries get – like a car or housing allowance. With respect to the Committee, the WP’s proposal of a five month bonus is much cleaner and publically conscionable.
As many Singaporeans would understand by now, the Worker’s Party proposals take their cue from the rank and file of the civil service – ordinary, respectable civil servants who represent the spine and spirit of public service. One PAP MP was dissatisfied with the dental benefit of $70 the committee proposed for Ministers. But if the rank and file civil service is extended a $70 dental benefit, why should it be different for Ministers? Do they have golden teeth? If this government wants its Ministers to have more dental benefits, then extend the same privilege to our civil servants – for they serve the public too. This is much preferred instead of treating Ministers differently. They are MPs and public servants first.
The new normal does not call for superheroes as one PAP MP suggested; it calls for servant-leadership. Servant-leaders are those who back proposals that are akin to what mainstream Singaporeans can aspire to. As the WP numbers show, this is achievable and you can still attract high quality individuals to politics. But only if you do not limit your MPs to come from the top 10-20% richest Singaporeans, as PAP MP Ms Josephine Teo desires.
Some PAP MPs have gone about the shortcomings of the WP approach – to apply a multiple to MP salaries and thereby deduce a salary for Ministers. Others suggest it is arbitrary – and that you could decide to pay your Ministers by working backwards from a predetermined figure. I was a little surprised to hear this from MPs like Vikram Nair and Zaqy Mohammad because the reasoning behind the Committee’s proposals are no less arbitrary. As recommended by the committee, MPs allowance is pegged to 17.5% of an entry level admin service super scale admin service scholar (note earlier correction). Ministers get a 40% discount of the salaries of the top 1000. Isn’t that arbitrary? Why not 10% or 12.5% of entry level Admin Service superscalers or 50% discount for Ministers as opposed to 40%. Can’t you get to the figures you want by manipulating these percentages? But it leaves me to acknowledge the intellectual honesty of Mdm Halimah Yacob who noted that while the specific multiple for Ministerial salaries proposed by the Workers’ Party can be interpreted as arbitrary, so can the numbers and percentages contained in the committee’s recommendations.
The neutral may say, both the WP and PAP proposals are arbitrary and I think the intellectually honest in this chamber will be the first to raise their hands and say this is true. But the difference lies in the principles behind the WP’s proposal. We seek to persuade Singaporeans that political salaries ought to be underwritten by a key Workers’ Party philosophy – that public service is open to all Singaporeans. The privilege of being of service to your fellow countrymen is the attraction of being an MP. You are an MP first, before becoming a Minister. Public service in Singapore is for all Singaporeans, and opportunities to be a Minister should not be restricted or institutionalised to the few with silver spoons.
To conclude Mr Speaker, if human resource is indeed our most precious commodity as Mr Gan Thiam Poh has reasoned, then it is indeed pragmatic that we send the right signal to all Singaporeans and open the prospects of political service to all Singaporeans, not just the top 10-20%. The Prime Minister also alluded to the difficulty the PAP may face recruiting individuals to become Ministers if salaries are not competitive. With respect, I would urge the Prime Minister to leave some room to consider the possibility that perhaps it is not the salary, career or family circumstances that is the issue. On the contrary, another reason could be that in light of the new normal, talented people feel the PAP is no longer capable of hosting their aspirations for Singapore, and no salary can move them.
We in the Workers’ Party believe that choosing the appropriate benchmark is critical as an unmistakable signal is sent when the principles behind your salary peg is at a level the average Singaporean can empathise with and aspire to. In doing so, we believe that the emotions that have justifiably bedevilled the debate on political salaries over the decades, will finally be assuaged. I may not have convinced this House, but I certainly hope to have convinced Singaporeans that while the final numbers behind the PAP and WP recommendations may not be world’s apart, the principles behind them most certainly are.
Mr Speaker, I oppose the principles behind the salary benchmarks chosen by the committee, and therefore I oppose the motion.

07 April, 2012

Myanmar elections
The good thing is that Aung San Suu Kyi won 43 out of 45 seats available. USDP the main party against NLD Suu Kyi's party, the national league of democracy, only won 1, which NLD did not take part in.
This shows the overwhelming majority favouring Nld and Ms Suu Kyi.

Ms Suu Kyi has vowed to press ahead with lodging her own complaints over irregularities against the NLD, despite an overwhelming win that saw the party take 43 of the 45 available seats.
The USDP won just one seat in parliament - the only one not contested by the NLD.
But everyone who knows about shit, knows this too.
In 2008, when Burma was halfway through the way till today's democracy, they set weird rules.
One, even if a party win by a landslide, up to 25% might be required to give up the places to the military.
Two, anyone with a foreign spouse or child, well, is not allowed to be the President.(Which is so against Ms Suu Kyi who has a british husband)

On 9 April 2008, the military government of Burma released its proposed constitution for the country to be put to a vote in public referendum on 10 May 2008, as part of its roadmap to democracy. The constitution is hailed by the military as heralding a return to democracy, but the opposition sees it as a tool for continuing military control of the country.
The legislative branch is the Union Assembly (ပြည်ထောင်စုလွှတ်တော် Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, which is a bicameral legislature consisting of the 440-seatPeople's Assembly and the 224-seat National Assembly. Military (Tatmadaw) member delegates are reserved a maximum of 56 of 224 seats in the National Assembly and 110 seats of 440 in the People's Assembly.[8] This is similar to former Indonesian and Thai constitutions.[citation needed]
The revisions in state structure, including the creation of self-administering areas were not implemented until August 2010.[9]
Foreign media often incorrectly allege that the constitution bars Aung San Suu Kyi from holding public office because of her marriage to a British citizen;[8] in fact, she would only be barred from the office of President, under the disqualification of those who have a spouse or children who are foreign citizens. There is no similar disqualification for any other public office.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Burma under the 2008 Constitution.
Here comes my personal opinion.
I feel that the 25% thing must be taken away.
It is used to ensure the junta(military) still have a say in most things.
Well,hopefully Thein Sein, the current President would change that.
But about the marriage issue, i am quite divided.
Because even though i have faith in Suu Kyi, what if her successors to presidency have child or spouses outside the country?  Would that not lead to a bit of disloyalty? But still, i would say this, "dude so what? has love life got to do with work?" but that will depend on the priority of Ms Suu Kyi.
so basically I'm against.
But for Suu Kyi case it's different as her husband died so no bullshit that she like Britain for that. 
Seriously la no sense lei. 
My wifey Malaysian then i what? love Malaysia more than Singapore? NO!
So yea. that's all I have. If you could, tweet, g+1, or comment. 
CYA loveeee(: <3333

06 April, 2012

Can you tell me how we got in this situation
I can't seem to get you off my mind
All these ups and downs they
They trip up our good intentions
Nobody said this was an easy ride

After all, we're only human
Always fighting what we're feeling
Hurt instead of healing
After all we're only human
Is there any other reason
Why we stay instead of leaving
After all

Can we get back to the point in this conversation
Where we saw things through each other's eyes
Cause now all I see is ruin and devastation
We all need some place we can hide inside

After all, we're only human
Always fighting what we're feeling
Hurt instead of healing
After all we're only human
Is there any other reason
Why we stay instead of leaving

I'm smart enough to know that life goes by
And it leaves a trail of broken hearts behind
If you feel I'm letting go, just give me time
I'll come running to your side
Can you tell me how we got into this situation
I can't seem to get you off my mind

After all, we're only human
Always fighting what we're feeling
Hurt instead of healing
After all we're only human
Is there any other human [2x]