Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover! (SOCIAL EXPERIMENT)

do not lose hope

SAINT PETERSBURG: Lionel Messi admitted to having survived the most nerve-wracking 90 minutes of his career as Marcus Rojo's stunning finish four minutes kept his and Argentina's World Cup hopes alive with a 2-1 win over Nigeria to reach the last 16.

"I don't remember such suffering," said Messi when asked if it was the most tense match of his career. "It was due to the situation and what we were playing for."

bad news

bad news is that our dearest mother had high blood sugar after eating so much things in a couple of days.
the worst of all is that she has new pressure ulcer in her left buttock.

Singapore-Malaysia water agreements

Singapore and Malaysia have signed four agreements regarding the supply of water from across the Causeway. The first signed in 1927 is no longer in force.1 Water imported from Malaysia under the other three agreements – signed in 1961, 1962 and 1990 – meets about half of Singapore's water demand.2 However, this quantity was reduced after the 1961 pact expired in August 2011. The government has also stated that Singapore can be self-sufficient in water by the time the 1962 and 1990 agreements expire in 2061.3

1927 agreement
Dated 5 December 1927, this agreement was signed between the municipal commissioners of the town of Singapore and Sultan Ibrahim of the state and territories of Johor. It allowed Singapore to rent 2,100 ac (8.5 sq km) of land in Gunong Pulai for the purpose of supplying raw water from the area to Singapore. An annual rent of 30 sen per acre (per 4,047 sq m) was payable on the land but the water was free. Johor set aside an additional 25 sq mi (64.7 sq km) of land and agreed not to alienate any part of this land for the next 21 years without the consent of the Singapore commissioners.4 If the latter wanted to reserve any part of this plot for drawing water, they had to give notice to the Johor government and pay an annual rent of $5 per acre.5 In return, Johor could obtain 800,000 gallons (3,637 cu m) of treated water from Singapore daily at a rate of 25 sen per 1,000 gallons (per 4.55 cu m).6 If Johor required more treated water after 1929, the amount supplied could be increased, but only up to 1,200,000 gallons (5,455 cu m) per day.7

1961 agreement
The Tebrau and Scudai Rivers Water Agreement was made between the city council of the state of Singapore and the government of the state of Johor.8 Although the agreement was officially signed on 2 October 1961, it had already taken effect on 1 September the previous month.9 By then, Singapore was a self-governing state while Malaya was an independent nation.10 The 1927 agreement was declared void in this document.11

The agreement gave Singapore the full and exclusive right to draw off all the water within the designated land at Gunong Pulai, Sungei Tebrau and Sungei Scudai for a period of 50 years up till 2011.12 Singapore was to pay n annual rent of RM5 per acre for the land and a charge of 3 sen for every 1,000 gallons of raw water it drew.13 Singapore also agreed to provide Johor with a daily supply of treated water up to 12 percent of the raw water it drew, subject to a minimum of four million gallons (18,184 cu m),  and at a price of 50 cents per 1,000 gallons. If the 12 percent provided by Singapore was insufficient, Johor could request for more treated water to be supplied.14

1962 agreement
The Johor River Water Agreement was signed on 29 September 1962 between the city council of the state of  Singapore and the government of the state of Johor.15 Valid for 99 years till 2061, the agreement gave Singapore the right to draw 250 million gallons of water per day (1.14 million cubic metres) from the Johor River.16 In return, Johor was entitled to a daily supply of treated water from Singapore up to two percent of the raw water it supplied.17

Singapore had to pay rent for the land it used “at the standard rate applicable to building lots on town land”.18 The water prices remained the same as in the previous agreement – 3 sen per 1,000 gallons of raw water supplied to Singapore and 50 sen per 1,000 gallons of treated water sold to Johor.19 After Singapore and Malaysia stopped using a common currency in 1973, the prices became denominated in Malaysian ringgit.20

The 1961 and 1962 agreements provided for a price review after 25 years, with arbitration being the agreed course of action if bilateral price negotiations failed.21 However, the Johor government chose not to revise the prices at both opportunities, in 1986 and 1987.22

The Independence of Singapore Agreement (also known as the Separation Agreement) signed between the governments of Singapore and Malaysia on 9 August 1965 guaranteed the 1961 and 1962 water agreements.23

1990 agreement
This was signed on 24 November 1990 between the Public Utilities Board (PUB) of Singapore and the government of the state of Johor.24 It was supplementary to the 1962 pact and would also expire in 2061.25 A separate document was signed on the same day by the governments of Malaysia and Singapore to guarantee adherence to the agreement.26

Under this agreement, Singapore was allowed to construct a dam across Sungei Linggiu27 to facilitate the extraction of water from the Johor River,28 with Johor setting aside about 21,600 ha (216 sq km) of land for the project.29 Singapore agreed to pay a RM320 million as compensation for the permanent loss of use of the land and its associated revenue, in addition to a premium of RM18,000 per hectare (10,000 sq m) and an annual rent of RM30 for every 1,000 sq ft (per 92.9 sq m) of the land. The cost of building and maintaining the dam would be borne by Singapore.30

In return, Singapore could purchase treated water from Johor generated by the new dam.31 This would be over and above the 250 mgd of raw water that it was allowed to draw from the Johor River under the 1962 agreement.32 The price of this additional supply would be calculated based on a fixed formula: the weighted average of Johor's water tariffs plus 50 percent of the surplus from the sale of this water by PUB to its consumers after deducting Johor's price and PUB's cost of distribution, or 115 percent of the weighted average of Johor's water tariffs, whichever was higher.33

This agreement was a follow-up to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed on 28 June 1988 between the two countries' prime ministers at the time: Lee Kuan Yew for Singapore and Mahathir Mohamad for Malaysia. The signing of the MOU was hailed as a breakthrough in Singapore-Malaysia water relations – the culmination of six years of difficult negotiations.34

Beyond 2061
The Singapore government  did not renew the 1961 agreement which expired in 2011.35 To reduce Singapore's dependence on imported water, the government has taken steps to increase the size of the local water catchment area and to build up the supply from non-conventional sources, namely NEWater (reclaimed water) and desalinated water (treated seawater), by setting up water treatment plants in various parts of Singapore. The first two NEWater plants were opened in Bedok and Kranji in 2003.  With the various water projects progressing well, government officials have assured Singaporeans that the country can be self-reliant in water by 2061 if it needs to be.36

Bank robber didn't fall for the dye pack

They are real bills but they are all out of circulation, so in general they are usually older. My company makes the dye packs, but we ship them out without the money, I have a complete kit at my house and all of the bills are from the 90's.

The bank provides "bait money", which are bills with recorded serial numbers. The idea is when you are inevitably caught having that on you is another nail in the coffin. Also, don't rob banks, 

Remain faithful to one’s spouse/ partner

this is how things works

the good ones in the companies will do more while the bad one will do less.
however, they will still get paid in the end.

so, why think too much?
it is the way how things work.
and almost all the companies are the same as bad as yours.

so don't worry be happy

this is how they works

An Australian court fined U.S. electronics giant Apple Inc AUS$9 million (US$6.7 million) on Tuesday after a regulator accused it of using a software update to disable iPhones which had cracked screens fixed by third parties.

The Australian Competitor and Consumer Commission (ACCC) sued the world's biggest company by market value for "bricking" - or using a software update to disable - hundreds of smartphones and tablet devices, then refusing to unlock them if the devices had been serviced by non-Apple repairers.

On Tuesday the Australian Federal Court found in the regulator's favor, saying Apple had breached the country's consumer law by telling some 275 customers they were not eligible for a remedy if their device had been repaired by a third party.

"The mere fact that an iPhone or iPad had been repaired by someone other than Apple did not, and could not, result in the consumer guarantees ceasing to apply," ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said in a statement.

Global companies must ensure their returns policies are compliant with the Australian Consumer Law, or they will face ACCC action," Court said.

miss you

He was a known miser, and Mr Loh Kum Mow was so tight-fisted that he only fixed the roof of his house when it was about to collapse, and repainted it when the authorities issued him a warning.

But the late Mr Loh turned out to be a generous soul, as his family discovered after his death in December 2016 — at the age of 89 — that the former sub-accountant had left a portion of his S$20 million wealth to charity.

Mr Loh, who died of old age, donated a total of S$3.35 million to four charities – National Kidney Foundation (NKF), Thye Hua Kwan Moral Charities, Ren Ci Hospital and Bo Tien Welfare Services Society – which received close to S$840,000 each. The organisations were informed of the bequest two to three months ago when Mr Loh's shares were fully liquidated.

The rest of his fortune was portioned out to his four nephews and nieces, who inherited 13.75 per cent each, and his three sisters received six per cent each.

Giving a glimpse into the person Mr Loh was, Mr Charlie Loh, his nephew and executor of his will, said his uncle was a "self-made man" who came from a poor family of fishmongers. Little is known about his childhood and life, only that he lived apart from his family from a young age, and did translation work for the Japanese during the occupation in World War II.

Although he only had a few years of formal education in Mandarin, he earned an accountancy Cambridge certification when he was in his 30s, said Mr Charlie Loh. The 65-year-old pieced together information about his uncle after he inherited his Bukit Timah house and went through his belongings.

Mr Loh's job as a sub-accountant at Public Insurance Company (now called MS First Capital Insurance), plus his investments in the stock market, allowed him to amass a fortune that surprised his relatives.

However, his spending habits were unlike that of a wealthy man. Mr Charlie Loh said he dressed simply and did not own any branded goods except for a Seiko watch, which was repaired many times. His wife, who was a typist and a colleague at the firm, was also frugal. The couple married when Mr Loh was in his 40s, and they had no children.

But Mr Loh was a responsible family man, said his nephew, as he had paid his grandmother's nursing home fees for five years after she was bedridden, hit by dementia and needed a feeding tube.

The Guangdong-born Mr Loh, who immigrated to Singapore when he was three, also never failed to send annual sums of money back home to his extended family in China. His final wish in 2014 before his death two years later was to make a trip to Shantou to visit relatives, said Mr Charlie Loh, who helped organise it.

Mr Charlie Loh said his uncle had selected the charities for his donations in 2012 shortly after his wife's death, and he had asked him to arrange for a lawyer to help draft his will.

NKF could have been picked as a beneficiary as Mr Loh was a diabetic patient for over 40 years, said the younger Loh. The others could have been selected because he had witnessed the suffering of patients with chronic diseases, including his own mother and wife.

the loan sharks spray painted the walls outside her home and threatened her neighbours. "They told my neighbours that I said they'd be my guarantor," she said. "About 50 per cent of them knew about it."

The loan sharks also sent unsolicited fruit baskets, McDonald's and Pizza Hut meals to her home. And they called up her employers and shouted at her colleagues

She estimates that she's paid around S$400,000 in total, with S$150,000 to go.

"The money came fast," she admitted. Cash was transferred to her via iBanking within days. It started with S$20,000, then the amount "snowballed" into the hundreds of thousands.

When Madam Tan couldn't pay off one of her loans due to the exorbitant interest rates and ever-changing terms, she borrowed money from another loan shark to settle it. It became a vicious cycle.

"At first, it could be monthly payments, but next week they would say: 'Hey your payment is up'," she said. When she told the moneylender of the original terms, the usual reply would be that the guy who gave it had gotten into an accident.

Madam Tan's mobile number was also circulated as quickly as the money. Soon, she found herself in debt with more than 50 different moneylenders.

She borrowed from friends and colleagues and worked three jobs to try and pay off her debts. "It was quite a substantial amount," she said.

THE ADVICE

In light of her "painful" and "traumatising" ordeal, Madam Tan advised the public never to borrow from loan sharks. 

"I urge anyone who really needs financial help to seek the correct agency or welfare institution," she said. "Because the agony I went through - at the start you may not feel it, but the moment you're out of help, that’s when the worst will come.

"Everybody will know and I don’t know how to lift up my head."

hard work but i am happy