.

The entire “cash” controversy from the Bloomberg defamation trial reveals something quite telling—not about the case, but about how people interpret language. In court, when Mr Shanmugam said the property was “paid in cash,” the meaning is straightforward to anyone familiar with property transactions. it simply means no financing was used. No bank loan, no mortgage. Just full payment through standard banking channels. It's the same in motor vehicle industry. The dealer always ask you want HP you say no, I pay cash and take out your cheque book in the good old days. Today it's digital cash. But on social media, “cash” somehow transformed into images of suitcases, armoured trucks, and whispered insinuations of impropriety goes viral. What's so unbelievable is to see so many well-educated folks getting onto the bandwagon. Something so mundane turning into serious publicity nightmare. Just imagine when this translated down to the lesser educated folks.   Let’s take that logi...

From social media I see majority of Singaporeans take the view the government should negotiate with Iran to allow our vessels to pass through Hormuz Strait. They contend sticking to principles of international law is senseless when rising prices is going to hurt everyone. So it seems the threshold for pain is extremely low, what my late mom would say "buay cheah kor" (literally means cannot eat suffering). I appreciate there is a breaking point for everyone. But for a state, we navigate a crisis based on what kind of shock it is on a time horizon. Will it end tomorrow, next week, next month... is it a permanent thing? For all we know, the strait will be passable next week as US navy has entered the area. What I like to address is the call for the government to negotiate. Do these folks actually understand what it is all about? None of those vessels -- oil tankers, LNG, containerships, that are flying Singapore flags and stuck inside or outside the Hormuz Strai...

Long after a military operation is over, its spin continues in the media, social platforms, propaganda machineries. The latest involving the US rescue of the second crew member of the downed F-15 over Iran is the flavour of the moment.  You can bet your last dollar there will always be a story you have never been told, always a conspiracy somewhere. The latest being the rescue effort was a camouflage for a covert attempt by the US to "grab" Iran's enriched uranium. We are told the proof in the pudding is the drama unfolded in close proximity to the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, the huge force involved in the rescue operation, and Iranian authorities have "confirmed" it was a failed "uranium grab".  This is one such Singaporean's views on Facebook::The post is reproduced here: Mission Impossible turns into Mission Disaster  The US Sectary of War, who has never served in the Army before, fired the 4 Star General Randy George who was...

Recently Mr Foong Swee Fong made an interesting post on Facebook (reprinted in the box below for those interested). Foong is one of those few Singaporean writers that I follow. Not necessarily that I agree with everything he says but I like the topics raised and different views. This particular post has issues that are right down my alley so I like to confront. The gist of Foong's post is Singapore is disadvantaged in the US-SG FTA. Note that I am not critical of the messenger, just trying to add value to a discussion from my perspective. So I shall just stick to the facts, not the rhetoric. Claim #1: Most of the trade is just supply chain shuffling with little value added The claim made is yes, trade increased partly due to the FTA, but it's just parts moving between 2 countries taking advantage of free tariffs. There is no value-added and consumes resources. It  is meaningless for Singapore and it is economically wasteful. This looks like artificial trade. ...

The U.S. initiated a probe against more than 16 major economies, including Singapore, focused on alleged excess manufacturing capacity. This triggered the usual backlash of Trump-hate rhetorics with no one interested in seeking a proper understanding. Trump imposed blanket-wide tariffs on many countries under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In the Learning Resources Inc Vs Trump case, the Supreme Court of U.S. struck down these tariffs on grounds the president has no authority to impose blanket tariffs on imported goods for economic reasons. It did not rule the Executive cannot impose tariff, just that the IEEPA framing is illegal. Chief Justice John Roberts actually alluded to the fact the president has other workaround means to reframe the tariffs legally. And here's to those who call Trump a fascist -- how do you call a fascist who's hands are bounded by the judiciary? Not a very good one, huh? The Office of the U.S....