Yesterday was Friday, 13th February, 2009.
I was reminded of this dreaded day and date by my colleague as he was starting up the computer at the workplace.
So on every Friday 13th, I would tell myself "Today is the tomorrow you dread most yesterday on Thursday 12th"...
Yes, indeed. There were so many tragedies in history which occurred on Friday the 13th.
Just wondering if there is a list of all the Friday the 13th tragedies, calamities, through the decades and centuries.
Who are the people who believes that Friday the 13th a "lucky day"?
What happens to a person born on Friday the 13th? Will his life be "unlucky" for as long as he lives?
To each his own belief or interpretation. Friday the 13th, 9/11 or whatever date is just another day.
In Cantonese, the number 13 is a good number. It sounds like "sa sang" - 'sure to survive' : )
You are welcome to ramble about this topic here just for fun :)
Friday, February 13, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Time, Space & the "In-Between"
This blog is gathering cobwebs with the passing of another year.
It was started about one year ago in 2008.
I am befuddled.
I use this word instinctively, not because I know what it means but because it sounds nice. I thought it has something to do with "fuzzy logic".
The dictionary definition for 'befuddled' is:
1. confused and vague: "used especially of thinking"; "muddleheaded ideas"; "your addled little brain"; "woolly thinking"; "woolly-headed ideas".
2. stupefied by alcoholic drink: "the wino's poor befuddled mind"; "a mind befogged with drink:;
3. perplexed by many conflicting situations or statements: "filled with bewilderment"; "bewildered and confused"; "a cloudy and confounded philosopher"; "just a mixed-up kid"; "she felt lost on the first day of school".
As a noun, 'befuddlement' is defined as a "confusion resulting from failure to understand". (SYN: bewilderment, obfuscation, puzzlement, mystification, bafflement, bemusement).
I think the word I have been searching is "befuddlement". I found it...but does it increase my understanding of so many things I do not understand?
Once again, I have become confused :(
An advice I often receive from friends is "If you cannot convince a person, confuse him". I am now the victim of an unhelpful advice.
I am now thinking aloud to look for opinions and views on the relevance of this blog.
Guest bloggers are welcome to enlighten me and those interested in the topic of "Time, Space, and what's "in-between" with comments or submit them as guest blogs.
Thank you for your active participation.
It was started about one year ago in 2008.
I am befuddled.
I use this word instinctively, not because I know what it means but because it sounds nice. I thought it has something to do with "fuzzy logic".
The dictionary definition for 'befuddled' is:
1. confused and vague: "used especially of thinking"; "muddleheaded ideas"; "your addled little brain"; "woolly thinking"; "woolly-headed ideas".
2. stupefied by alcoholic drink: "the wino's poor befuddled mind"; "a mind befogged with drink:;
3. perplexed by many conflicting situations or statements: "filled with bewilderment"; "bewildered and confused"; "a cloudy and confounded philosopher"; "just a mixed-up kid"; "she felt lost on the first day of school".
As a noun, 'befuddlement' is defined as a "confusion resulting from failure to understand". (SYN: bewilderment, obfuscation, puzzlement, mystification, bafflement, bemusement).
I think the word I have been searching is "befuddlement". I found it...but does it increase my understanding of so many things I do not understand?
Once again, I have become confused :(
An advice I often receive from friends is "If you cannot convince a person, confuse him". I am now the victim of an unhelpful advice.
I am now thinking aloud to look for opinions and views on the relevance of this blog.
Guest bloggers are welcome to enlighten me and those interested in the topic of "Time, Space, and what's "in-between" with comments or submit them as guest blogs.
Thank you for your active participation.
Friday, September 5, 2008
People's Cigarette Factory
Long ago in 1959, before Singapore launched its anti-smoking campaign, before the ban on cigarette advertisements, before smoking in public places was prohibited by law, the then Minister of Commerce and Industry, Mr J. M. Jumabhoy proposed in the Legislative Assembly that the government build a "People's Cigarette Factory" as a revenue earner for the Singapore Island (as the Republic of Singapore was known during the colonial days, before independence in 1965).
Cigarette manufacturing was considered a lucrative business venture then.
The proposal sparked off a controversial debate between the government and the established cigarette manufacturers.
The following is the reproduction of an advertisement by SINGAPORE TOBACCO COMPANY published in The Straits Times of January 27, 1959 (Page 13):
QUOTE:
Mr Jumabhoy's statement that a People's Cigarette Factory, serving Singapore Island, could make a profit of $9 million annually is open to criticism.
The figures he quotes gives the impression that the Singapore consumer of cigarettes smokes one type, or category, of cigarettes only, and this is far from the actual fact.
Mr Jumabhoy takes as the basis of his calculations just one of the higher priced lines (which, before the recent change, retailed at 40 cents for 10 cigarettes), but he ignores the lower price categories of imported brands which amount to 33% of the total sales in the Island and on which there is no profit. Also omitted is local manufacture (which benefits from the existing low rates of import duty on cut tobacco) which amounts to 21% of the total sales. Presumably, the three local manufacturers will be allowed to continue in business. Therefore, if the People's Factory caters for the "little man" as Importers and local manufacturers do at present, this would immediately and considerably reduce the unrealistic profit that has been estimated.
One cannot start up a cigarette factory overnight either at full capacity or at 100% efficiency, particularly when workers have to be trained in the specialised processing of tobacco, and the operation of complicated machinery. The preliminary period would, therefore, show no profit, and it would be some considerable time before optimum profits could be reached - no businessman would expect otherwise.
Mr Jumabhoy talks in terms of 150 million monthly, but surely profits will depend upon whether every smoker will smoke what Mr Jumabhoy forces upon him, and that either no cigarettes will be smuggled in the Island from elsewhere, or that, when smuggled in, the consumer will disdain them.
Profit Tax seems to be overlooked. If no tax is paid on the profit of the People's Cigarette Factory, the money will have to come from other sources as obviously Government revenue must be maintained.
J. C. HOSGOOD
Chairman
S'pore, 26/1/59
UNQUOTE
Cigarette manufacturing was considered a lucrative business venture then.
The proposal sparked off a controversial debate between the government and the established cigarette manufacturers.
The following is the reproduction of an advertisement by SINGAPORE TOBACCO COMPANY published in The Straits Times of January 27, 1959 (Page 13):
QUOTE:
Mr Jumabhoy's statement that a People's Cigarette Factory, serving Singapore Island, could make a profit of $9 million annually is open to criticism.
The figures he quotes gives the impression that the Singapore consumer of cigarettes smokes one type, or category, of cigarettes only, and this is far from the actual fact.
Mr Jumabhoy takes as the basis of his calculations just one of the higher priced lines (which, before the recent change, retailed at 40 cents for 10 cigarettes), but he ignores the lower price categories of imported brands which amount to 33% of the total sales in the Island and on which there is no profit. Also omitted is local manufacture (which benefits from the existing low rates of import duty on cut tobacco) which amounts to 21% of the total sales. Presumably, the three local manufacturers will be allowed to continue in business. Therefore, if the People's Factory caters for the "little man" as Importers and local manufacturers do at present, this would immediately and considerably reduce the unrealistic profit that has been estimated.
One cannot start up a cigarette factory overnight either at full capacity or at 100% efficiency, particularly when workers have to be trained in the specialised processing of tobacco, and the operation of complicated machinery. The preliminary period would, therefore, show no profit, and it would be some considerable time before optimum profits could be reached - no businessman would expect otherwise.
Mr Jumabhoy talks in terms of 150 million monthly, but surely profits will depend upon whether every smoker will smoke what Mr Jumabhoy forces upon him, and that either no cigarettes will be smuggled in the Island from elsewhere, or that, when smuggled in, the consumer will disdain them.
Profit Tax seems to be overlooked. If no tax is paid on the profit of the People's Cigarette Factory, the money will have to come from other sources as obviously Government revenue must be maintained.
J. C. HOSGOOD
Chairman
S'pore, 26/1/59
UNQUOTE
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The Red Dawn in China
LONDON, Monday, January 12, 1959
Professor Denis Brogan, a well-known British scholar and author, today expressed the view that China would be the area where the most momentuous happenings are likely to take place in 1959.
"The Chinese are the most numerous people in the world and one of the most competent."
Professor Brogan wrote in an article published in the News Chronicle.
"If they can be remade. If hundreds of millions of human beings can be cut off from their roots, led alike to despise the family and the dead, induce to accept willingly a degree of control by the state that the Russian communists at the moment when they were most "dizzy with success" never dreamed of then we have something new, something formidable, something from our Western point of view, horrible as well as new."
"But our horror will matter not at all if Mao brings it off. Will he?"
"Abandoning all pretence of prophecy, I can only say 'I hope not.'"
"I don't expect 1959 to differ much from 1958 - except in China, wehre the Red Dawn may come up like thunder, or go down in darkness," Professor Brogan added.
Source: Reuter
Professor Denis Brogan, a well-known British scholar and author, today expressed the view that China would be the area where the most momentuous happenings are likely to take place in 1959.
"The Chinese are the most numerous people in the world and one of the most competent."
Professor Brogan wrote in an article published in the News Chronicle.
"If they can be remade. If hundreds of millions of human beings can be cut off from their roots, led alike to despise the family and the dead, induce to accept willingly a degree of control by the state that the Russian communists at the moment when they were most "dizzy with success" never dreamed of then we have something new, something formidable, something from our Western point of view, horrible as well as new."
"But our horror will matter not at all if Mao brings it off. Will he?"
"Abandoning all pretence of prophecy, I can only say 'I hope not.'"
"I don't expect 1959 to differ much from 1958 - except in China, wehre the Red Dawn may come up like thunder, or go down in darkness," Professor Brogan added.
Source: Reuter
If HK can make goods why can't we?
SINGAPORE, Monday, January 5, 1959
The president of the Singapore Manufacturers' Association, Mr David Lee today (Sunday, January 4, 1959) disagreed with Mr J.A. Mason that Singapore was "too small" to support industrial development.
He told the Straits Times: "Singapore has enough space for industrialisation and its goods can find a market not only at home but overseas if the prices are competitive."
"At the same time, this island can still maintain its entrepot status."
Mr Lee was commenting on a statement by Mr Mason, retired chairman of three major local companies, who said Singapore had neither the space nor the market for any great industrial development.
Mr Mason had added: "The great prosperity of Singapore in the past has been based on a free port economy and any shift in this policy would need the utmost thought, otherwise the result would merely be a rise in our already high cost of living."
So puzzling
Describing Mr Mason's statement as 'puzzling', Mr Lee said: "Hongkong is smaller than Singapore."
"Yet today she is one of the most highly industrialised cities in the world while keeping her entrepot trade."
"Why can't Singapore do the same?" he asked.
"Instead of being a middle man, we can produce our own goods and sell them ourselves - at competitive prices."
Source: The Straits Times
The president of the Singapore Manufacturers' Association, Mr David Lee today (Sunday, January 4, 1959) disagreed with Mr J.A. Mason that Singapore was "too small" to support industrial development.
He told the Straits Times: "Singapore has enough space for industrialisation and its goods can find a market not only at home but overseas if the prices are competitive."
"At the same time, this island can still maintain its entrepot status."
Mr Lee was commenting on a statement by Mr Mason, retired chairman of three major local companies, who said Singapore had neither the space nor the market for any great industrial development.
Mr Mason had added: "The great prosperity of Singapore in the past has been based on a free port economy and any shift in this policy would need the utmost thought, otherwise the result would merely be a rise in our already high cost of living."
So puzzling
Describing Mr Mason's statement as 'puzzling', Mr Lee said: "Hongkong is smaller than Singapore."
"Yet today she is one of the most highly industrialised cities in the world while keeping her entrepot trade."
"Why can't Singapore do the same?" he asked.
"Instead of being a middle man, we can produce our own goods and sell them ourselves - at competitive prices."
Source: The Straits Times
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Viewpoint on MRT
MRT survey will be a waste of money if....
We are about to spend $4 million on planning our transport system for the nineties (SH Apr 30, 1971).
Two of the terms of reference are that in 20 years the population will be four million and the number of cars one to eight people, or 500,000.
When we start with the wrong terms of reference, a survey just so much waste of time and money, and the implementation of the recommendations probably disastrous.
Let us see how sound these two fundamental terms are.
Doubling of the population to four million in 20 years means a yearly increase of 3.5 percent.
We prided ourselves in having reduced our rate of increase recently to near two percent and held out hopes of a lower rate of two percent, the population in 20 years would be three million.
Where will the extra million come from?
Are we going to imitate our erstwhile colonial overlords and import them for sweeping our streets, driving our buses, nursing our sick, and manning our factories because we have become too prosperous and lazy to do menial task?
Our officials should leave their luxurious bungalows one evening and take a stroll through the housing estates, particularly in the Tiong Bahru-Redhill area, to have a foretaste of what living with four million people in the island will be like.
They will perhaps then advocate the doubling or trebling of our efforts in birth control, instead of planning for a population of four million.
It has been estimated not long ago that the vast Soviet Union had only about 500,000 cars.
For us, a mere pin prick on the globe, to try to match the number of cars possessed by a super power is sheer madness.
The environment of this tiny island will already be severely polluted by the presence of four million people. To pollute it further by 500,000 cars will simply be intolerable.
It is about time we start putting severe curbs on car ownership.
Let us realise that additional car ownership will only be a drain on our financial resources, and a wastage of land in road building.
We do not, and never will be able to make cars to give employment to our people. We do not have the infrastructure nor the home demand to support a car manufacturing industry.
Let us make a realistic assessment of our place in the world, and not get too swell-headed.
There are two ways of making a suit of clothes fit: by making a new expensive suit to fit a fat belly, or by keeping a neat and trim figure. I am all for the latter.
Source: Singapore Herald, May 1, 1971
By Henry L Pau, Singapore
We are about to spend $4 million on planning our transport system for the nineties (SH Apr 30, 1971).
Two of the terms of reference are that in 20 years the population will be four million and the number of cars one to eight people, or 500,000.
When we start with the wrong terms of reference, a survey just so much waste of time and money, and the implementation of the recommendations probably disastrous.
Let us see how sound these two fundamental terms are.
Doubling of the population to four million in 20 years means a yearly increase of 3.5 percent.
We prided ourselves in having reduced our rate of increase recently to near two percent and held out hopes of a lower rate of two percent, the population in 20 years would be three million.
Where will the extra million come from?
Are we going to imitate our erstwhile colonial overlords and import them for sweeping our streets, driving our buses, nursing our sick, and manning our factories because we have become too prosperous and lazy to do menial task?
Our officials should leave their luxurious bungalows one evening and take a stroll through the housing estates, particularly in the Tiong Bahru-Redhill area, to have a foretaste of what living with four million people in the island will be like.
They will perhaps then advocate the doubling or trebling of our efforts in birth control, instead of planning for a population of four million.
It has been estimated not long ago that the vast Soviet Union had only about 500,000 cars.
For us, a mere pin prick on the globe, to try to match the number of cars possessed by a super power is sheer madness.
The environment of this tiny island will already be severely polluted by the presence of four million people. To pollute it further by 500,000 cars will simply be intolerable.
It is about time we start putting severe curbs on car ownership.
Let us realise that additional car ownership will only be a drain on our financial resources, and a wastage of land in road building.
We do not, and never will be able to make cars to give employment to our people. We do not have the infrastructure nor the home demand to support a car manufacturing industry.
Let us make a realistic assessment of our place in the world, and not get too swell-headed.
There are two ways of making a suit of clothes fit: by making a new expensive suit to fit a fat belly, or by keeping a neat and trim figure. I am all for the latter.
Source: Singapore Herald, May 1, 1971
By Henry L Pau, Singapore
Purpose of the Blog
In a nutshell, the purpose of this blog is to review the results of predictions which people made a decade or two ago; about things which they visualised as "the future" and has now become the "present" or the "past".
Some of these predictions included those from doomsdays soothsayers about the end of the world; the "Millennium Bug" in Year 2000 which was expected to create havoc to the computerised world and other scary earth-shattering future vision of mankind.
Are these predictions made by people based on the figments of their imagination?
Does the means justify the ends? Over time, does perceptions change?
In simple terms, it is about perception, time and space....
As an experimental project, I will base my research on material in the public domain from printed publications, the Internet and relevant contributions from readers.
The blog format will be tweaked and fine-tuned as we move along.
Whilst relevant blog topics will be selected discriminately to reflect changing circumstances, changing environment and changing lifestyles, they are not intended for criticism on the merits or demerits of these public issues under discussion.
The blog topics are selected based on an educational perspective of events of the past; particularly those where useful lessons can be derived.
The "vision of the future" as presented two or three decades ago have been overtaken by historical events; just as what is defined as the "future" looking forward to the next several decades would eventually become the "past". In the process, the lessons learned are the valuable experience earned; as what our forefathers have imparted to us.
Some of these predictions included those from doomsdays soothsayers about the end of the world; the "Millennium Bug" in Year 2000 which was expected to create havoc to the computerised world and other scary earth-shattering future vision of mankind.
Are these predictions made by people based on the figments of their imagination?
Does the means justify the ends? Over time, does perceptions change?
In simple terms, it is about perception, time and space....
As an experimental project, I will base my research on material in the public domain from printed publications, the Internet and relevant contributions from readers.
The blog format will be tweaked and fine-tuned as we move along.
Whilst relevant blog topics will be selected discriminately to reflect changing circumstances, changing environment and changing lifestyles, they are not intended for criticism on the merits or demerits of these public issues under discussion.
The blog topics are selected based on an educational perspective of events of the past; particularly those where useful lessons can be derived.
The "vision of the future" as presented two or three decades ago have been overtaken by historical events; just as what is defined as the "future" looking forward to the next several decades would eventually become the "past". In the process, the lessons learned are the valuable experience earned; as what our forefathers have imparted to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
