[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnFJxvvIWdc][/youtube]

tankee:

call me old-fashion, but this is wrong. Accident or no accident, taking heroin is a no-no. Why pays tribute to a drug abuser? :roll:

I was thinking to myself, how I hated smokers irresponsibly harming those around with their 2nd hand smoke.... also, I am sure I am not able to have peace of mind had I have a neighbor that's an addict that creates havoc and hurl abuse in my neighborhood whenever he is high with substance... selfish and narrow minded and how not forgiving I am!

But the double standard will always be, say for example, someone that lives far away, famous or not, is an addict...as long as it does not bother me, and probably will never have.... then I will just gladly say that -- oh, that's his choice, I shall respect that... after all, we are told to respect others' choices....

I guessed we belong to the confused generation that, the line of right or wrong is blurred, if a very act of menace is not harming us directly, we should accept that that's his choice to have; only when the push come to shore, then, we will have the right to be outspokenly righteous (?!)
.
.
.
Haiz! It was not long ago when people were straight forward with right and wrong....

做人无外乎三守则：


一）不卑不亢
（不弓身求赐求和，不委身而背弃原则以期图得别人欢心，亦不应自负而傲视同㑪。）

二）人必自重… 而后 人重之
（不自重之人，难求得别人尊重。）

三）不解释 不抱怨
（有量有力担之，沉默担下。 无力担之，则该有量的寡言不辩。 保持有尊严的沉默总好过滚去更下的三等去解人对己之误解。误解者，隨它去！… 也切记千万别毫无胸襟的不住的怨天尤人, 仿佛这世界欠了你！）

limlim:

no pictures?

Her picture was on the paper (think it was 2 days ago)... she ain't the feminine type, more like that kind of girl whom HK people called \"TB\".

atrecord:

Nebbermind:

apparently this video which was featured in the news went viral.


[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuqXBenFVV0][/youtube]

This is a typical case of someone who is kiam par...
If inside the army, 100% sure he is candidate for blanket party...
Pls, send him back to where he came from...

Ang moh 大哂？！ :slapshead: what happened after he obstruct traffic stopped abruptly in the middle of a junction and approached the driver? :nailbite: anyone got bashed?!

Er, excuse moi, this would be the 2nd time I think it's justified to use this smiley -- :siao:

Book burning is pure vandalism



Published on 10 Oct 2013
7.30pm (ST Online)


By Ong Sor Fern
The Straits Times

Book burning is barbaric.

No ifs, ands or buts. No grey areas. Simple as black and white print on paper.

As someone who has loved books all my life, the very idea of burning books fills me with revulsion and the act itself strikes fear in my heart.

Hold your horses, I hear you say, aren’t you overreacting just a tad? After all, the group of parents and children who organised and took part in a little bonfire of PSLE assessment books and papers recently were just indulging in a little stress relieving exercise.

To me, it does not matter if it was assessment books that were set alight. The very act of burning a book, any book, is anathema to me. It is an act of vandalism.

Arguing that it is simply an assessment book, to me, is just the beginning of a slippery slope.

Once one dismisses one book as disposable and objectionable, what’s there to stop one from deciding another book contains objectionable ideas and therefore needs to be burnt?

And if books contain objectionable ideas, what about the people who believe in the objectionable ideas?

Qin Shi Huang burnt books. And he buried scholars alive.

The Spanish burnt Mayan codices. And they tortured and killed Mayan people in the name of civilising them.

The Nazis burnt books and works of art. And they were guilty of genocide.

You might think I am making a great leap in logic here - burning a few assessment books is very far from committing genocide.

But book burning has a long, infamous, unbroken association with death and destruction. It often presages narrow-mindedness, intolerance and inhumanity in a community.

It is not simply the act of burning a book itself, but the symbolic power of the gesture.

In great cultures throughout human history, there has been a high value attached to the book as an object, as a symbol of learning, a marker of culture, a badge of civility.

With good reason, since they carry the wisdom of the ages, the knowledge painstakingly acquired and recorded through the generations.

Books were once treasured because of their rarity - literacy was the province of the privileged few, and creating books was a laborious process, hence the saying knowledge is power because it was once, literally, so, as access to them was controlled carefully by the powers that be.

Thus attacking the book was, and still is, a potent move, which explains why bullies in power, tyrants and dictators, have always zeroed in on books as a target.

Organising a book burning is an action pregnant with meaning and redolent of threat throughout the ages.

It is the formality of the ceremony - bringing together people to witness a communal attack on an object which represents the very best of human endeavour and intellect – that fills me with horror and dread at its implications.

The act signals a blithe disregard for, and active antipathy towards, what every man should strive for - learning, knowledge, culture.

The recent case in Singapore was deplorable as it was the parents who allowed, even encouraged, their children to take part in an act whose resonances they clearly do not understand.

Children may be excused because they do not know better. But did the adults who masterminded this act of vandalism think about the message they are conveying to their children? Have they considered that by burning books, they undermine the inherent value of the pursuit of knowledge?

Blaming it all on the stress created by a pressure cooker education system is no excuse.

The system is there, you can buy into it or not. The choice is up to you as a parent to teach the values you want to inculcate in your children.

Just as the choice was there to find a way to relieve stress that did not attack a symbol of intellect and imagination.

That decision – to burn books – ironically shows why we so direly, urgently, need more books in our culture.


Source: The Straits Times

I was at Shell 30mins ago, saw a stack of wan bao (or sin min) with big bold headline:-- 热咖啡 淋男童 （ :whut: !!）


Seriously, does the reporter and the editor even know the meaning of 「淋」？！

淋= pour onto.

The reporter is saying that someone in the childcare center \"poured\" a cup of hot coffee \"onto\" the boy; in another word, it's an open accusation that the childcare teacher intentionally hurt the child... by pouring a cup of coffee onto his hand!!

It constitute to defamation or at least is should be treated as obstruction of police investigation!


No sure why people pay good money to read this type of tabloid... 妖言惑众！

fusilli:

just saw this on ST:


http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/rumours-parents-have-pay-extra-bring-right-baby-home-are-untrue-kkh-20

The KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) has debunked rumours circulating online that the hospital is charging parents an additional $15 to ensure they bring the right baby home.

These claims, posted on Singapore-based forums and websites, cited a Tuesday report by Lianhe Wanbao which suggested that KKH was charging patients for the use of the radio frequency identification (RFID) system that matches mother to child.

Ms Audrey Lau, director of the corporate development division of KKH, rejected these claims adding that \"the information implied by these sites is factually incorrect\". \"KKH does not have an additional charge to patients for the use of this system. The Lianhe Wanbao report referred to by these sites clearly mentions that KKH does not charge patients,\" she said in a media statement. \"We take a very serious view of this misinformation and will be raising this directly with the entities involved.\"

Under the RFID system, matching tags are attached to mother and child at delivery. These tags set off an alarm if the baby is given to another mother but emits a pleasant chime if the right pair of tags are together.

Thanks, fusilli.

So, 水落石出..... too many people/media are just blindly and happily jump the gun at any authority that they could blamed or are super quick at 一支竹竿打翻全船人 , couldn't even bother to verify first, to them if there is any chance to pin the blame on others they'd seized.... it only spell out one thing-- what a lot of unhappy disgruntled souls!

sushi88:

Harlequin, I think you brought up a very good and valid point.

This over-protection on the other extreme is quite revolting. But I believe when the child grows up, the parents will get a good dose of their own medicine for not setting the record straight with him when he was young.

I just notice someone standing next to this Texas boy. If that is the father, then I really :salute: him, not only he dares to discipline his child in public, he keeps his child company by standing next to him. I believe this makes a big difference to the boy. If he were to stand there alone to suffer the punishment, he might have felt his father abandon him. However, by giving him moral support during the reform, he trusts his father knows what he is doing and will accept his punishment better.

I think I learn something today.

:goodpost:

Kudos to his parent! This is an utmost display of love and dignity -- \"stand by you\".

Not to answer whether I agree with this radical parenting style....

Just thinking to myself how many parents are on the other side of the fence, they won't admit their children are bullies, thus no apologies is needed, not sure it's due to their pride or because they simply do not believe their children are capable of bullying?!

It's the other way round for them, go all out to defend their children, if not, they will point their fingers back.... it's never their (children) fault!

I have heard of an incident of a 7yo child at P1, flipped his table at the teacher, and injured his classmate sitting beside him, when the parent was called to meet the discipline master, the dad accused the teacher being insensitive to his bao bei by insisting he answering a math question that he hasn't mastered, the teacher should not, in any way, made his son answer anything that he doesn't know.... and, this not just played out in that counselling session, he royal highness couldn't let the matter rest, and brought it up again in the class parents meeting session a month and a half later, in front of 34 parents and 5 teachers!! I guessed he wanted to shame the teacher :?

In this light, I prefer to sound my honk at this Texas boy! What he learned from this episode, is his to keep... it's better than there comes a day when no one is ever dare to teach, anything, anymore!