Planting saplings is oh so fucking hard work. Cameraman make sure you get a few more shots of me and my green fingers.

Sleep until very song right? Pay you to sleep or to work? Wake up your fucking idea!!!!!!!

http://www.xinhuanet.com/

It don't matter if you are hideous looking, bitch is only interested in savouring a cock fest.

Last Saturday (9 Nov), Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing said that the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) does not grant Indian nationals unconditional access into Singapore or immigration privileges. The news was picked up by the Straits Times (ST) and reported the following day (‘Free Trade Agreements have created more jobs for Singaporeans: Chan Chun Sing‘(https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/ftas-have-created-more-jobs-for-sporeans-chan), 10 Nov). Essentially, ST reported: Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing has come out in defence of Singapore’s free trade agreements (FTAs), saying these have helped more Singaporeans get employed in higher-skilled jobs. He made the point yesterday as he refuted criticism that one such agreement, between Singapore and India, had given Indian professionals unfettered access to jobs and citizenship here. Such falsehoods, circulated online and in WhatsApp chat groups, were aimed at scaring and dividing Singaporeans at a time of economic uncertainty, he said. Some purveyors of such untruths had gone further to play the racial card. Warning against such behaviour, he said:“The Government takes a very serious view of these attempts to rattle Singaporeans and divide our society.” ST also raised the point that CECA critics have pointed to India taking advantage of the “intra-company transferee” clause to move large number of Indian nationals to work here. ST defended the government saying that the government has said there is a stringent definition for intra-corporate transferees and additional criteria that make it harder to game the system. It then quoted the example that to qualify under CECA, intra-corporate transferees must have worked for their company for at least one year before being posted to Singapore and they are only allowed to stay for a total term not exceeding five years. What ST said was incorrect. TOC points to actual CECA text showing otherwise Yesterday (11 Nov), TOC also published news of what Chan said on Saturday with regard to Indian nationals working in Singapore under CECA (‘Chan didn’t disclose that there is no economic needs test or quotas on agreed services under CECA‘(https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2019/11/11/chan-didnt-disclose-that-there-is-no-economic-needs-test-or-quotas-on-agreed-services-under-ceca/)). TOC points to the exact text of Chapter 9 on “MOVEMENT OF NATURAL PERSONS”(https://www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/-/media/esg/files/non-financial-assistance/for-companies/free-trade-agreements/CECA_India/Legal_Text/Chapter9_Movement_of_Natural_Persons) agreed by both countries in CECA. TOC highlighted that CECA allows “intra-corporate transferees” to, in fact, work for up to total of 8 years in the host country. And added, “Note that for intra-corporate transferees, it is defined as an employee who has been employed for a period of not less than either six months in company and one year industry experience or three years industry experience immediately preceding the date of the application for entry.” Hence, under CECA, the total number of years an Indian national can work in Singapore as an “intra-company transferee” is 8 and not 5 years, and the person only needs to be recruited by the company in India for just 6 months and not 1 year before his or her transfer to Singapore. TOC also highlighted that there is no quota requirement imposed on intra-corporate transferees and under Article 9.3 of CECA, all the “intra-corporate transferees” are to be exempted from any “labour market testing” or “economic needs testing”. “To top it all, Article 9.6 even allows the ‘intra-corporate transferees’ to bring in their spouses or dependents to work here too,” TOC shared. ST says sorry After TOC’s article was published yesterday, ST corrected itself and apologised for its erroneous report. Its original online article was later updated late yesterday night with the correct figures: This morning (12 Nov), ST also published a retraction (‘What it should have been‘(https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/what-it-should-have-been-3)) with the following text: In Sunday’s report, “FTAs have created more jobs for S’poreans: Chan”, we said intra-corporate transferees must have worked for their company for at least one year before being posted to Singapore. We also said they are allowed to stay for a total term not exceeding five years. These conditions for transferees are set out in the World Trade Organisation’s General Agreement on Trade in Services. But under the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Ceca), such transferees are required to have worked for their company for a period of not less than six months, among other things. They are also allowed to stay for a total term not exceeding eight years. We are sorry for the error. It tried to explain its error by saying that it was referencing WTO’s general agreement. Unemployment rate going up for Singaporeans Meanwhile, the Manpower Ministry released the Labour Market Report Advance Release for Q3 last month, showing that even though growth of total employment was higher, the number of retrenchments rose over the quarter with unemployment rates inching up. The overall unemployment rate increased over the quarter, from 2.2 to 2.3%. For Singaporeans, the unemployment rate was higher rising from 3.2 to 3.3%. Manpower Minister Josephine Teo said, “This suggests that mismatches are widening. It could be jobseekers not having the skills to access available jobs, or jobs being insufficiently attractive.” https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2019/11/12/st-says-sorry-for-publishing-wrong-info-on-how-long-indian-nationals-can-work-in-sg-under-ceca/(https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2019/11/12/st-says-sorry-for-publishing-wrong-info-on-how-long-indian-nationals-can-work-in-sg-under-ceca/)

Edwin Tong comes to “fumbling” Heng Swee Keat’s rescue in AHTC parliamentary debate Ms Lim's request for Mr Heng to clarify his apparent remarks that "millions have been lost" appeared to fluster the heavyweight ruling party politician who later claimed that he had actually said "millions of dollars in public funds are involved." Minister of State for Law Edwin Tong came to Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s rescue after the latter fumbled while defending a parliamentary motion he had brought forward against Workers’ Party (WP) politicians Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim, yesterday. DPM Heng, who has been identified as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s presumptive successor, moved to get Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) saga to require Mr Low and Ms Lim to recuse themselves from the town council’s financial matters, in the wake of a High Court judgment that found the MPs liable for damages in the AHTC lawsuit. Yahoo Singapore reporter Nicholas Yong noted that the DPM “fumbled”when he was expected to defend his motion after Ms Lim and Hougang MP Png Eng Huat asked him to clarify the comments he had made in his hour-long speech. Ms Lim’s request for Mr Heng to clarify his apparent remarks that “millions have been lost” appeared to fluster the heavyweight ruling party politician who later claimed that he had actually said “millions of dollars in public funds are involved”. Mr Yong reported: “Heng hesitated in his response and flipped through his folder at length, before moving on to the rest of Lim’s queries.” When Mr Png asked the DPM for clarification on his implication that only one signatory was needed to encash a cheque under AHTC when the town council actually requires two signatories including the AHTC chairperson or vice-chair, Mr Heng wanted to get back to why he put forth the motion and criticised Ms Lim and Mr Png for asking “little questions”. He said: “Let me get back to why I moved this motion. This is a question of integrity…I have asked very serious questions about how the transactions were done…but both of you have just stood up to ask me a series of little questions.” Shortly after Mr Png shot back that “it’s a question of integrity,” Mr Heng asked for a ten-minute recess to consider and respond to Ms Lim’s questions. Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin granted the adjournment despite WP chief Pritam Singh’s objection. Edwin Tong came to the rescue of Mr Heng following the break and addressed Ms Lim and Mr Png’s questions. On Mr Png’s point about co-signing cheques, Mr Tong hit out: “I think the position is very clear: it’s not about one signatory or two signatories, it’s about the entire system that you have set up as a result of what you have done…That entire system has been completely subverted, a proper system has been subverted by the way in which you’ve done this. “Don’t penny pinch a dime with us.” Referring to the “serious and grave findings” of the High Court judgement, Mr Tong said that the judgment constitutes a “serious and grave indictment” of the WP MPs conduct. He also accused the WP of spreading a “misleading narrative repeatedly put out to the public over several years” that they had to immediately appoint a new managing agent after the PAP-owned Action Information Management (AIM) abruptly stripped them of the town council management computer system. http://theindependent.sg/edwin-tong-comes-to-fumbling-heng-swee-keats-rescue-in-ahtc-parliamentary-debate/

The first 15 minutes of Moebius, the latest taboo-exploding effort from South Korean filmmaker Kim Ki-duk, sets the stage for the carnival of perversity that follows. A father (Cho Jae-hyun) in a suburban home receives a call on his mobile. His wife (Lee Eun-woo), a wino with caked-on makeup (think: soap opera star) senses it’s his mistress and a bizarre wrestling match over the phone ensues. All this childishness happens in front of their son (Seo Young-ju), who’s seated at the family breakfast table eating his cereal, and sporting his school uniform. That evening, the son and mother both witness the father having sex with his much-younger mistress (also played by Eun-woo, who looks dramatically different) in the back of the family vehicle. When they get back to the house, she catches her son masturbating to the episode, so she removes a rusty blade hidden under a Buddha head statue, goes to her sleeping husband, and attempts to castrate him—but he catches her right before she goes all Lorena Bobbitt. So, she heads over to the room where their son is sleeping and, with tears streaming down her face, castrates him… and then eats it. And this is just the appetizer to Kim’s sadistic smorgasbord. Later, the father has his phallus surgically removed and begins investigating penile transplants so that he can affix his member to his son. The castrated kid, meanwhile, joins his foul friends in a gang rape of the mistress in the back room of her local grocery, and the group of teens is sent to prison. While he’s locked up, the father discovers that castrated people can bring themselves to orgasm through self-abrasion, so he begins chafing his feet and arms with rocks. And, ever the good father, he passes the knowledge along to his sexually frustrated son who, once he’s released from the slammer, sparks up a strange relationship with the mistress—finding pleasure by stabbing himself in the shoulder with a knife whilst fondling her breasts. Things really get incestuous, however, when the delirious mother returns. Kim’s film is, apparently, a not-so-veiled commentary on Freudian castration anxiety and the phallic stage of development, as well as a critique of Korean men’s subjugation of women and the lack of communication within bourgeois nuclear families, since the film is dialogue-free and the characters go unnamed. It’s also intended to be a black comedy—however crazy that sounds; an examination of the demented places our minds can take us when under severe emotional distress. While the vérité-style cinematography of Moebius—courtesy of a shaky, handheld camera—leaves much to be desired, the muted, expressive performances of the game actors help elevate the chaotic, hyperbolic proceedings to an Oedipal tragedy of silence that, by its final act, will leave you chuckling against your better judgment. Moebius premiered out of competition at the Venice Film Festival, and hit theaters stateside on August 15. It was initially banned in its native South Korea before a commission overturned the ruling. Kim, the 53-year-old, ponytailed art house provocateur, comes off as a cross between the corporal films of the New French Extremity (see: Breillat, Noé, etc.) and the Manga-infused social commentaries of Miike; a Dadaist intent on challenging his viewers’ moral compasses. The rabble-rouser also has a preoccupation with mute women who find themselves terrorized by feral, sadistic men. Kim’s 1996 directorial debut, Crocodile, told the tale of a menacing criminal who saves a beautiful young woman from committing suicide by jumping into Seoul’s Han River. But you soon learn it’s no act of chivalry. He’s saved the woman only to repeatedly rape her, and the woman is so beaten down by the world that she decides to stay with her “savior” and his two homeless pals, forming a bizarre family unit. The Isle, released in 2000, included a number of disturbing scenes that induced some viewers at the Venice Film Festival to literally lose their lunch, including one where a woman stuffs fishhooks into her vagina and jumps into the water in a suicide attempt, and others in which live frogs and fish are skinned and mutilated onscreen. “It’s very understandable from a Korean point of view,” Kim told Monsters and Critics of the controversy surrounding The Isle. “Right now, just the mere appearance of a prostitute in a movie is frowned upon. I believe Korean society needs to improve and develop its ability to have a discourse about individuals and even life itself.” His star actress Lee Na-young almost died while shooting a suicide-by-hanging scene in his 2008 film Dream. This incident sent Kim into a deep depression, and the result was Arirang, a remarkably self-indulgent experiential film which the actor wrote, produced, directed, and starred in as all three characters—an interviewer, an interviewee, and a shadow. It was an arthouse therapy session of sorts, where the controversial filmmaker called out his detractors and frenemies, and opined about the stage of Korean cinema. Pieta, which premiered to critical raves at the 2012 Venice International Film Festival, followed an emotionless, lonely loan shark that stumbles upon a middle-aged woman who claims she’s his estranged mother. In one scene, after feeding her a piece of flesh that he’s carved out of his thigh, the gangster-son shoves his fist into his mother’s vagina, screaming, “I came out of here for sure? Then why can’t I go back in? I will go back in!” Afterwards, she gives him a handjob to calm his nerves, and the saintly stranger eventually transforms the hardened criminal into a softie. The delightfully perverse critique of Catholicism and capitalism was made on a shoestring budget, and won the fest’s Golden Lion over Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master. That year’s jury president Michael Mann said Pieta “seduced you viscerally.” “I am not trying to earn money with my films,” Kim remarked at the festival’s press conference. “I shot Pieta with the equivalent of $100,000… My aim is to take the temperature of the world from time to time.” Source: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-most-f-ed-up-movie-of-the-year-moebius-a-castration-and-incest-fueled-south-korean-satire

Still it must be stated she's the perfect candidate for paizuri.