|
Back
 x 0
 x 0
|
GE 2011 THREAD
D E L E T E D ? ? ? ?
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
风 雨 同 舟
同 甘 共 苦
NOT THE SAME ? ? ? ?
though in the SAME BOAT
Only 15% (private housing) are SHELTERED from the RAIN and LIGHTNING? ? ? ? 同 甘
Rest 85% (HDB) are nOt SHELTERED frOm the raIn & lIghtnIng ? ? ? ? 共 苦
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
nO SEXY WOMEN at MBS SINGAPORE
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
By Bang, 05/05/2011
Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is world's sexiest woman
Rosie Huntington-Whiteley has been named Sexiest Woman in the World by FHM magazine, with Katy Perry and Rihanna placed second and third respectively.
Rosie Huntington-Whiteley has been named Sexiest Woman in the World by FHM magazine, with Katy Perry and Rihanna placed second and third respectively.
Rosie Huntington-Whiteley has topped FHM's list of the 100 Sexiest Women in the world.
The model-and-actress - who topped Maxim's Hot 100 list earlier this week - denied Cheryl Cole the top spot for the third year in a row and beat off competition from Katy Perry and Rihanna, who placed second and third respectively in the British publication's annual poll.
Rosie - who is dating actor Jason Statham - said: 'Wow. Thanks for voting guys, I'm so flattered to be FHM's Sexiest Woman in the World. This is a really exciting year for me and I hope you all enjoy 'Transformers 3'.'
Completing the top five were Megan Fox - last year's runner up - in fourth place and 'TRON: Legacy' star Olivia Wilde.
Last year's winner Cheryl dropped out of the top 10 completely, falling to 12th place on the list.
Instead, the rest of the top ten comprised Brooklyn Decker, Marisa Miller, Kelly Brook, Nicole Scherzinger and Irina Shayk.
Stuart Hood from FHM commented: 'Strong showings from Katy Perry, Rihanna and actress Olivia Wilde give this year's poll a very American flavour, while the high rankings of less widely known swimsuit models Brooklyn Decker and Irina Shayk highlight either just how internet-savvy British men have become or just how obsessed with WAGs we still are. Decker is married to American tennis star Andy Roddick and Shayk dates Cristiano Ronaldo.'
Among the 31 women who dropped completely off the list were Jennifer Aniston - the first time she has not featured in the list since 1996 - Sienna Miller, Lily Allen and Charlotte Church.
The newest member of the royal family, Princess Catherine, was a re-entry to the list, ranking at number 39, down from her previous appearance at 25 in 2007, while Prince Harry's on/off girlfriend Chelsy Davy was placed at 96.
The full list of FHM's 100 Sexiest Women in the World - as voted for by over one million readers - can be seen in the new issue of the magazine, which is out today (05.05.11).
FHM's Sexiest Women in the World 2001 top 20:
1. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
2. Katy Perry
3. Rihanna
4. Megan Fox
5. Olivia Wilde
6. Brooklyn Decker
7. Marisa Miller
8. Kelly Brook
9. Nicole Scherzinger
10. Irina Shayk
11. Jessica Alba
12. Cheryl Cole
13. Kristen Stewart
14. Adriana Lima
15. Kim Kardashian
16. Mila Kunis
17. Ashley Greene
18. Emily Atack
19. Natalie Portman
20. Vanessa Hudgens
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
 
Joe2020 ( Date: 05-May-2011 15:44) Posted:
You mean we are going to be like this?
Isolator ( Date: 05-May-2011 15:39) Posted:
| I have high hope for WP in Aljunied and Nee Soon.... If they lost, democracy will fail.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
Singapore MBS Lifestyle is nOt sUItable fOr the Westerners ? ? ? ?
nOt SEXITING At ALL ? ? ? ?
sO dUll ? ? ? ?
nO mOOd tO splUrge ? ? ? ?
nO thrIlls ? ? ? ?
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
SINGAPORE
But the future of international nightclub brands Avalon and Pangaea, which were set to open at Marina Bay Sands (MBS) after the good buzz surrounding another clubbing brand Ku De Ta, has come into question. — Having flung open their doors to many Hollywood celebrities elsewhere in the world, they were touted as Singapore’s next party hot spot.
T
The purported termination has resulted in a lawsuit between Kraze Entertainment, which has ties with Korean company Krazetech, and the clubs’ purported operator, local entertainment company Pan Av Asia Partners.
In the writ of summons filed on Tuesday, a copy of which was obtainedby
The two companies entered into a management agreement in Jan 19 last year. Pan Av Asia Partners, which owns the trademark for the two clubs names, would operate the two nightclubs. In turn, tenant Kraze Entertainment will be granted exclusive intellectual property rights for the Avalon and Pangaea brands in Singapore.
The collaboration fell through after Pan Av Asia Partners purportedly scrapped its licensing deal on March 25, resulting in Kraze Entertainment’s own termination of its management agreement on April 9.
Lawyers for Kraze Entertainment refused to comment while those for Pan AV Asia Partners were not available as at press time.
The behind-the-scenes legal tussle between supposed tenant and operator seems to have left the fate of the two nightclubs in limbo.
Both clubs are slated to be housed at one of the integrated resort’s glass-and-steel structure Crystal Pavilion on Marina Bay. Covering a total of 2,000 sq m, Pangaea will occupy the first level, while Avalon takes the top two floors. MBS was unavailable for comment at press time.
In a previous interview, Avalon operator Steve Adelman described the club as “more than just a dance club … It is a multi-purpose venue with a full concert stage set-up to accommodate touring acts”.
Clubbers had a taste of what it could offer during last year’s Avalon At Large, an F1-related party held at Sands Expo and Convention Centre.
Avalon is a famous nightclub in Los Angeles frequented by Hollywood celebrities and a venue for annual parties for the Oscars, Emmys, MTV Music Awards and the Grammys.
Pangaea is a club brand with spots in New York, Miami and London. The clubs were originally expected to open their doors during the fourth quarter of this year.
Reactions from the clubbing community regarding the fate of these well known party hot spots have been mixed.
“Honestly, I don’t care. Because to me, it’s not really about the name, it’s about the people. And my friends and I will still have as much as fun at Zouk or Butter Factory.
It’s location and view that makes people want to go there,” said Mr Elvin Chua, 33.
But Ms Angela Wee, 24, said: “It’s a pity if they don’t come. I was very excited because I felt it would’ve brought added glitz and glamour to the night scene.” oday understands that the integrated resort may have terminated its lease agreement with its chosen tenant Kraze Entertainment, the Singapore entertainment management company tasked to bring in the two clubs.Today, Kraze Entertainment accused Pan Av Asia Partners of “various material breaches” in agreement.
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
Avalon and Pangaea in limbo
Licensing, management deals terminated
Mayo Martin
mayo@mediacorp.com.sg
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
We did not overspend or waste or squander money which was properly budgeted for these Games.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
PAP is facing a tough election: Vivian
Despite the party’s successes, everything it has achieved, he says, there is an ‘unsettled mood among our people’
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
This independent candidate tried his best to contest in Sengkang West but had to leave disappointed after his assentor failed to turn up. Decked in a suit and tie, Ooi is certainly dressed to look his age -- like a fuddy duddy -- at 70 years old. Point to note: ditch marbled tie prints for a nondescript colour for a more polished and professional look.
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
1st World Parliament ? ? ? ?
is necessary ? ? ? ?
tO ensure that ? ? ? ?
SINGAPOREANS ? ? ? ?
can have the FULL SERVICE ? ? ? ?
Of an INDEPENDENT ? ? ? ?
Lesgislative Executive Administration System [LEAS] ? ? ? ?
like J A P A N ? ? ? ?
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
Luostock ( Date: 05-May-2011 11:45) Posted:
What an informed voter should really know
by Fish Koh Jie Yu on Sunday, 01 May 2011 at 13:39
I'm writing this note because I'm about to " disengage" . I feel that as a political science student, I should address a few misconceptions about politics made by both incumbant and opposition supporters. So here it goes:
1. Oppositions are not called opposition because they opposed to everything the incumbant proposed. Opposition is a classification for political parties that do not hold power within the parliament. In Chinese, oppositions should actually be called 在 野 党 , instead of 反 对 党 .
2. Do not confused the government with the ruling party/incumbant. The government constitute both the executive branch, civil servants, national boards, ministries, etc. Voters are voting for a parliamentary representative. The parliament is the legistlative branch of the government. The ruling political party is a SUBSET of the government. In Chinese, they are called 执 政 党 and not 政 府 .
3. Building on point 2, it's not rational to claim that the Singapore government will collapse should a political party fail. This is a big discredit to our civil service. But on the other hand, because the ruling party has control of the parliament, it's leadership failure will have repercussions on Singapore. The nuances here is the extent. To suggest that Singapore will go straight back to third world is absurd. If I am to put it simply, a strong executive (civil service) but a weak legislative (parliament) means that we have weak(non encompassing) policies. A weak executive but a strong legislative means that we have weak(corruption, poor execution etc) policies too.
4. On the point of civil service. The institutions and civil servants are supposed to be non partisan (do not take sides). The basis of civil service is to serve the people and not any political party interest. There is absolutely nothing wrong for a civil servant to vote for or against the incumbant. It's a matter of personal choice. They are citizens first. The non partisan nature of the civil service is also the reason why civil servants that want to be part of the legislative branch needs to resign from the service. It's imperative that the civil servants need to be non partisan because if they are not, they have failed in their duties towards the people they are supposed to serve. Afterall, the civil service exist for the people, not for any political parties.
5. It's naive of anyone to think that politics is fair. Politics is NEVER fair. Every political party seeks to protect its own interests for survival. Perhaps, thinking of political parties as companies within an industry. Each of them will try their best to gain a bigger market share. Some may try to tweak the rules of engagement, some may try guerilla marketing etc. But at the end of the day, they are always looking to ensure their own survival. We as consumers should be aware that when a company is selling their products, they will use whatever trick they have up their sleeves to convince you that they are better than their competitors ( read promises, fear mongering, gunslinging etc). What we as consumers can do, is to assess these products and decide for ourselves, which is better.
6. Because every political party(company) seeks to protect their own interest, sometimes the country (industry) will suffer. Think of it as the tragedy of the commons. In their attempts to fight for a foothold/obtain a bigger market share, the tactics they used may often result in the country or elements within the country to be worse off. Politics is dirty. We the consumers are often at the losing end. Time to time, we will suffer from poor services and empty promises. Parties tell you to examine their track records and if you scrutinize, you will find many examples where these parties have compromised the country/elements within the country interest to benefit the party's interest. This is where the consumer needs to take a stand. They need to make a judgement on what's enough. On whether political parties have in their opinion compromised the common good for their party's good. Let's give an analogy. Microsoft had been offering the best product (windows) by sabotaging competitors' products, forcing merchants to only carry their products and buying over new start ups. While the product is good, we have to ask ourselves if the consumers are shortchanged by Microsoft's monopolic tactics. Could the industry be better off, if we have alternative system developed by Apple for example?
7. Point 6 leads me to switching cost. Many people had been arguing that if there are opposition voices in parliament, there will be gridlock, inefficiency and potliticking etc. Borrowing the same analogy from above, there are obviously switching cost. The familarity of mac users with windows and windows user with mac is the obvious switching cost one needs to consider when we choose which operating system we want to use. (or we can use linux). However, what most people got it wrong is the cost of switching. In a parliamentary system, you only need a majority 50% of the votes to pass through most legislative bills. To put it simply, as long as one party after 8th of May, have 44 seats out of the 87 seats Provided that they are all vote yeh to the bill, bills will pass through. The only bills that cannot pass through with a simple majority are constitutional amendments. That requires 75% of the votes. Constitution is a big word and perhaps many people are not familiar with it. So let me use the company example again. The board of directors can pass " bills" to inform the CEO to make strategic decisions for the company. However, if the board of directors want to make drastic changes such as increasing the number of board members, increasing the pay for board members etc, then they have to gather more than just a simple majority. To summarize, fears of gridlocks, government lockdown or whatever are highly unlikely in the Singapore political landscape.
8. This leads me to the talk about efficiency. Please do not confuse efficiency with effectiveness. We as consumers, citizens of Singapore, ideally, we want both efficiency and effectiveness. However, the the most efficient policy may not be the most effective. The most effective policy may not be the most efficient. I will give you an example. Smoking. If we want to make Singapore smoke-free in the shortest possible time (efficient), we can ban cigarettes. However, this is not likely to be effective because a black-market will arise and the interest of the smokers are being ignored. A more effective policy will be education to discourage non smokers from picking it up and to encourage smokers to quit. However, that's definitely not the most efficient policy. Kind of reminds me of the ethics question, " If you can enslave 5% of the population and increase the welfare of remaining 95% by 100%, will you do that?" It's your own preference, but personally I do prefer to have an effective policy that encompasses all than to have a more efficient policy that get things done quickly but neglect others interest.
9. Talking about interest. Here's what I urged all voters. Do not blame, label others etc. Everyone is voting based on their interest. Their interest maybe greater than themselves but ultimately they are voting on what they are comfortable with. Humans are diverse, some people will choose to buy a product from company A because company A is offering a good product even though they know that the product is coming at the expense of other people. Others have their own moral stand such as refusing to eat shark fin because of the cruelty involved in harvesting it. Like I always say to all, if you can sleep soundly knowing the consequences of what you chose, it's a good decision. To put it more explicitly, think of yourself as a manager deciding whether you should outsource your factory. You know that outsourcing jobs will increase savings and your own profit but will put the workers with you out of a job.There are many solutions to the problem and the decision you make should be one that you can live with it. It's your own moral standing. For my non religious friends, only your conscience can decide. For my religious friends, God will judge if you have live a virtuous life. Not me, not you or any other human being.
10. Last but not least, past performance is not a good indicator of future performance. Using the same analogy. Windows 95 was good. Windows 98 was good too. Windows XP was good. So based on past performance, we can expect Vista to be great? Well I think some will beg to differ. If Windows Vista was F uped, it doesn't mean than Windows 7 will be F uped too. Saying that PAP had been good so they will continue to be good is a fallacy. Likewise, saying that WP had pushed out good candidates like Sylvia Lim in the last election hence Chen Show Mao will be good too is a fallacy. What past performance can provide is a hint to how the new " products" will be. Our experience should be limited to that particular product and not the company. Microsoft is not great just because Windows 95, 98, XP, 7 are good products, neither is Microsoft shitty just because Vista is F-uped. Some ministers in their previous terms have not done so well. It's up to you whether you want to stick with Vista or change to Mac. Of course, things are not so easy. Microsoft in it's self interest will try to protect its marketshare. So they bundled the excellent Office Package like Excel, Words, with their Vista OS. For some other markets, they bundled Windows 7 with inferior stuff like notepad, paint, pictureviewer, and movie maker. If only I can choose exactly what products I want. Alas, the companies will never let me do that and I have to make a decision that I can live with. To choose Mac by punishing Microsoft monopolistic behavior and deal with the switching cost of readapting to a new OS. Or to choose Microsoft and affirm that their product is indeed good and I'm willing to overlook the risk of only knowing how to use one OS.
Note: My PolScience friends, if I made any mistakes here and there, please point it out, if I do k. :) |
Isolator ( Date: 05-May-2011 13:02) Posted:
| One must know Singapore belong to the people not party.... Public sector should belong to country not party.... Time to bring in democratic in Singapore. |
|
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
In his Chinese traditional costume and wispy long beard, independent candidate Zeng Guo Yuan pays homage to his traditional Chinese medicine roots. It's not the most fashion-forward outfit but that aside, it's a breath of fresh air from all the uniforms of shirt and pants we've been seeing all week.
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
are election agents taken good care ? ? ? ?
or exploited as FREE labourers ? ? ? ?
Laulan ( Date: 04-May-2011 14:43) Posted:
Voting is secret. I think you can find out yourself by being a volunteer as an election agent. The contesting parties would require a lot of election agents (volunteers) for polling days and those who attend rallies can register on the spot as an agent with the political parties or go to their party headquarters to register to volunteer. During voting, volunteers from each contesting party would be present to watch over the process which is roughly as follows:.
In order to ensure secrecy, after the votes are cast, the boxes containing the voting slips will be collected and poured into a big bag/container where the ballots are then thoroughly mixed up by shuffling them over and over again, several times. Then they will begin counting the votes by sorting the slips into respective party's votes. Every hundred slips will be bundled together so it is easier to count the number of votes for each party. If there is a convincing win, normally the loser will accept the result, otherwise he may object and ask for a recount. Each party can check if their votes are mixed up with their adversary's bundles to ensure their votes don't go to the wrong pile. After the election is over, and all the winners declared, the ballot papers with their boxes would be sent to the Supreme Court to be stored away for secrecy purposes in the safe vaults. Usually if there are no objections over the counting, then 6 months later the voting slips are sent to the incinerator to be burnt in the presence of the political parties. Thus nobody will know who votes for whom.
The secrecy of votes is thus ensured. Have no fear to vote whom you want to vote.
|
|
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
LIGHTNING
HURTS & KILLS
pharoah88 ( Date: 03-May-2011 11:23) Posted:
|
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
AUD will rIse Over the neXt DECADE
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
dOg bItes gOd ? ? ? ?
Laulan ( Date: 04-May-2011 09:32) Posted:
| That's the reason why slavery has been abolished by heros of the past because they empathised with them and made it possible for them to be free. Tody's dogs become man's best friends, but they do sometimes bite without warning, if agitated.. |
|
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
|
|
|
