Sunday, December 31, 2006
Allergy Attack!!!
I am of the Patrick Holford camp - and skeptical about new-world vaccines. This is what happened on our 2nd visit to the @#$@#$ pediatrician! The last visit ended with a nightmare too (some blasted kid coughed in our faces)
New 'Improved' 'Muffies'
Chocolate Oatmeal Raisin Muffies OK, so these are still not quite muffins. But they are getting better after heeding the advice here.
Friday, December 15, 2006
"I'm not the Maid!"
It can be mortifying when you realise what social and moral impacts having domestic help can have on your loved ones.
With due respect to the families who really need domestic help for one reason or another, here's a true-life horror story.
7-year-old Gremlin didn't learn how to poop on his own in a public toilet till recently. (I saw him in the female washroom and that was the reason given). His ability to shower is in doubt (all his caregivers say so). He's rude to the maids too, ordering them about and threatening to send them back if they 'misbehave'.
At the slumber party in Pixieville - a list of his 'firsts' in his life
- Wash his own dish after eating a biscuit
- Order his own food at the hawker centre
- Ask for the price and pay up
On the sunny 10-minute walk to the market - he went 'Help! Can we not walk? The sun is too hot! I'm melting! I need an umbrella!'
G: Canton Pixie, why is your house so dirty?
CP: I'm tired, no time to clean everything
G: Get a maid then
CP: Shudder
His caregivers asked him to help fold laundry. "Why should I? I'm not the maid what!"
The Gahmen has every reason to be worried about the nation's future. (National Service? Too hot! We need umbrellas!)
With due respect to the families who really need domestic help for one reason or another, here's a true-life horror story.
7-year-old Gremlin didn't learn how to poop on his own in a public toilet till recently. (I saw him in the female washroom and that was the reason given). His ability to shower is in doubt (all his caregivers say so). He's rude to the maids too, ordering them about and threatening to send them back if they 'misbehave'.
At the slumber party in Pixieville - a list of his 'firsts' in his life
- Wash his own dish after eating a biscuit
- Order his own food at the hawker centre
- Ask for the price and pay up
On the sunny 10-minute walk to the market - he went 'Help! Can we not walk? The sun is too hot! I'm melting! I need an umbrella!'
G: Canton Pixie, why is your house so dirty?
CP: I'm tired, no time to clean everything
G: Get a maid then
CP: Shudder
His caregivers asked him to help fold laundry. "Why should I? I'm not the maid what!"
The Gahmen has every reason to be worried about the nation's future. (National Service? Too hot! We need umbrellas!)
Why can't I ever get my muffins right?
I don't know if it's the Super Baby Foods recipes I follow, or those websites for health nuts - but my muffins always turn out bland, HARD and ... just plain unappetising!! AAAARRRRGH!!!!One more try with the advice here and if it STILL doesn't work out, I'm swearing off muffins!!!
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Reliving Lake District
Quaint little old-English breakfast place - complete with WWII-era aluminium tea and coffeepots. The Pixie Family had the Pixie Big Breakfast wonderfully reminiscient of their Lake District days...
We got the Rota virus!!!
Saturday - Little Pixie woke up in vomit at 10pm
Sunday - Perfectly fine and we had a great time.
Monday - Canton Pixie wakes at 5am with severe diarrhoea, and starts vomitting once charcoal pills are ingested. Tin Hang Zai becomes primary caregiver as the Canton Pixie is totally bedridden.
Tuesday - Tin Hang Zai continues to hold the fort. Canton Pixie has lost 3 kg.
Wednesday (today) - Canton Pixie is functioning, Little Pixie has become Ethiopian-sized, and Tin Hang Zai starts vomiting and diarrhoea.
The nightmare continues.....
Sunday - Perfectly fine and we had a great time.
Monday - Canton Pixie wakes at 5am with severe diarrhoea, and starts vomitting once charcoal pills are ingested. Tin Hang Zai becomes primary caregiver as the Canton Pixie is totally bedridden.
Tuesday - Tin Hang Zai continues to hold the fort. Canton Pixie has lost 3 kg.
Wednesday (today) - Canton Pixie is functioning, Little Pixie has become Ethiopian-sized, and Tin Hang Zai starts vomiting and diarrhoea.
The nightmare continues.....
Friday, December 01, 2006
My type of humour
Every company in this country that has the word 'public' in its mission or name seems to think that the citizens are mindless minions. Forum replies never fail to have these "we-think-you-are-really-morons" style of roundabout English, and convoluted logic in the hopes that the supposedly mindless minions don't catch the real reason behind those 'transparent' policies.
Nov 30, 2006
The poor will benefit most from transport fare cap
I refer to Jason Chiam Chiah Sern's letter "Much to learn from HK public transport system" (ST, Nov 28) and SMRT's reply "Fare cap will benefit only few passengers" (ST, Sep 30).
The latter states that "less than one per cent of passengers pays a fare of $1.90 or more. Therefore, having a fare cap would benefit only a small proportion of passengers, while transferring the cost to others."
SMRT's reason for not having a fare cap like in other countries is somewhat illogical because the fact that less than one per cent pays more than $ 1.90 means that a fare cap would have very little impact on the other 99-plus per cent who may have to share "transferring the cost to others".
It goes against the basic principle of public transport, which is the sharing of costs, so that a minority will not be penalised, since public transport is a necessity for those who cannot afford private transportation.
The main reason why there is normally a fare cap in other countries is to protect the small number of needy, who may be affected most if there is no fare cap.
If we ask the other 99-plus per cent of Singaporeans, I believe they would not mind sharing the cost for the benefit of the needy among the "less than one per cent". Why not conduct a poll of Singaporeans?
In the "Report of the Committee on the Fare Review Mechanism" last year, it noted that average fares in Singapore were lower than in New York, London, and Hong Kong.
However, all these cities have fare caps and monthly passes, which Singapore does not have. The monthly pass recently introduced by SBS Transit is only for travel on SBS buses, and the price is high relative to other cities of the developed countries. Monthly passes in other cities are typically multi-modal or multi-operator, if there is more than one operator.
The reports also cited the Household Expenditure Survey (HES) 2003 data that the lowest 20 per cent and second quintile group of household income had average monthly household income of $1,279 and $2,651 respectively. However, the Department of Statistics (DOS) puts the two statistics at $795 and $2,059.
Why does the report's statistics differ from the DOS's?
How has this discrepancy impacted on the computations on the affordability of transport fares ?
Leong Sze Hian
Nov 30, 2006
The poor will benefit most from transport fare cap
I refer to Jason Chiam Chiah Sern's letter "Much to learn from HK public transport system" (ST, Nov 28) and SMRT's reply "Fare cap will benefit only few passengers" (ST, Sep 30).
The latter states that "less than one per cent of passengers pays a fare of $1.90 or more. Therefore, having a fare cap would benefit only a small proportion of passengers, while transferring the cost to others."
SMRT's reason for not having a fare cap like in other countries is somewhat illogical because the fact that less than one per cent pays more than $ 1.90 means that a fare cap would have very little impact on the other 99-plus per cent who may have to share "transferring the cost to others".
It goes against the basic principle of public transport, which is the sharing of costs, so that a minority will not be penalised, since public transport is a necessity for those who cannot afford private transportation.
The main reason why there is normally a fare cap in other countries is to protect the small number of needy, who may be affected most if there is no fare cap.
If we ask the other 99-plus per cent of Singaporeans, I believe they would not mind sharing the cost for the benefit of the needy among the "less than one per cent". Why not conduct a poll of Singaporeans?
In the "Report of the Committee on the Fare Review Mechanism" last year, it noted that average fares in Singapore were lower than in New York, London, and Hong Kong.
However, all these cities have fare caps and monthly passes, which Singapore does not have. The monthly pass recently introduced by SBS Transit is only for travel on SBS buses, and the price is high relative to other cities of the developed countries. Monthly passes in other cities are typically multi-modal or multi-operator, if there is more than one operator.
The reports also cited the Household Expenditure Survey (HES) 2003 data that the lowest 20 per cent and second quintile group of household income had average monthly household income of $1,279 and $2,651 respectively. However, the Department of Statistics (DOS) puts the two statistics at $795 and $2,059.
Why does the report's statistics differ from the DOS's?
How has this discrepancy impacted on the computations on the affordability of transport fares ?
Leong Sze Hian
I like these Forum writers
The Canton Pixie is definitely one cynic who LOVES such posts. A result of having worked for the gahment for so long and meeting too many bozos with too much BS.
Read this!
And this! (emphasis mine)
Nov 30, 2006
Why Hong Kong does better than S'pore? Real market forces are at work
Of late, we have read many letters from readers praising and glamourising Hong Kong. They are correct but some of the comparisons may be exaggerated.
No doubt, Hong Kong's hospitality and retail service are better. Their streets (eg. compare their Nathan Road with our Orchard Road) are cleaner. Their public transport system is undeniably more user-friendly and efficient. They are naturally humane in treating their elderly and disabled.
This is a far cry from the days when the typical remark from a Hong Kong shopowner is, 'If you don't buy, don't touch'.
Why the rapid change? Did the Hong Kong government constantly exhort people to behave? Do they have more expensive campaigns? Is it because they impose heavier fines on wrong-doers?
None of the above, I think. The reason why this has happened is the Hong Kong people's strong desire to survive. And I am not talking about individuals but the big establishments that provide services, essential or otherwise. Competition and market forces weed out the uncertain, unceremonious and uncompromising.
The people are the ultimate judge, not some regulators or governing authorities. The people speak up openly and unreservedly when they think they are being taken advantage of.
Service providers have to fend for themselves and they must constantly be on their toes if they want to survive. It is wonderful to see real market forces at work.
Here in Singapore, almost everything is decided for us. Statements like, 'For your convenience, we have to remove this bus service' or 'In order to serve you better, we have to increase the fee' have become so common that we are already numbed as far as the reaction is concerned.
Can we blame the population at large for their apathetic and languid attitude towards other people, current affairs and life?
Daniel Chan Wai Piew
Read this!
And this! (emphasis mine)
Nov 30, 2006
Why Hong Kong does better than S'pore? Real market forces are at work
Of late, we have read many letters from readers praising and glamourising Hong Kong. They are correct but some of the comparisons may be exaggerated.
No doubt, Hong Kong's hospitality and retail service are better. Their streets (eg. compare their Nathan Road with our Orchard Road) are cleaner. Their public transport system is undeniably more user-friendly and efficient. They are naturally humane in treating their elderly and disabled.
This is a far cry from the days when the typical remark from a Hong Kong shopowner is, 'If you don't buy, don't touch'.
Why the rapid change? Did the Hong Kong government constantly exhort people to behave? Do they have more expensive campaigns? Is it because they impose heavier fines on wrong-doers?
None of the above, I think. The reason why this has happened is the Hong Kong people's strong desire to survive. And I am not talking about individuals but the big establishments that provide services, essential or otherwise. Competition and market forces weed out the uncertain, unceremonious and uncompromising.
The people are the ultimate judge, not some regulators or governing authorities. The people speak up openly and unreservedly when they think they are being taken advantage of.
Service providers have to fend for themselves and they must constantly be on their toes if they want to survive. It is wonderful to see real market forces at work.
Here in Singapore, almost everything is decided for us. Statements like, 'For your convenience, we have to remove this bus service' or 'In order to serve you better, we have to increase the fee' have become so common that we are already numbed as far as the reaction is concerned.
Can we blame the population at large for their apathetic and languid attitude towards other people, current affairs and life?
Daniel Chan Wai Piew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
