Tired of Private Number calling in at inconvenient time?

If you are tired of receiving spam calls from Private Numbers or any numbers, you have two choices.

First, register your mobile phone number with Do Not Call Registry at Personal Data Protection Commission Singapore. That will prevent unsolicited phone calls, SMS, and fax.

If you don't want to register to Do Not Call and would want to have more control, then the second option would be to utilize your reject list setting on your Android phone (I'm not familiar with other operating systems).

Here are the steps.

Steps taken to set auto reject to Private Numbers (or Unknown).

However, be warned that if you reject Unknown (or Private Numbers), you will not be able to receive calls made from Singapore public phone booths. Strangely, calls from public phones are under Private Numbers (or Unknown).

To add a specific number to reject list, it's easy - Just go to Call Log and touch on this number. A pop up will appear showing several options with one asking "Add to Reject list". Touch that option and the number will be added to the reject list.

To select a number from Call Log to be added in the Reject List. Go to Logs and select the number by touching it. A popup will ask for several options. Select Add to reject list.

The thing about Reject list is that even my three year old toddler can do it. My number was selected in my wife's phone and added to Reject list. When I wanted to call my wife, I would get the "Line Busy" notification. I never thought that my call was rejected until I tried numerous times. This had happened twice (palms on face).

Re: Video of passenger scolding taxi driver goes viral

Recently, a rude passenger scolding a taxi driver went viral in social media. The daughter of the taxi driver took action in order to seek "justice/respect" (or as an education to others about mutual respects) for her father by exposing the rude passenger's behaviour (without photo) to the masses. This caused the collective effort by the masses to start exposing (although she "pleaded" for netizens not do so) the rude passenger.
-
The taxi driver's daughter who worked for the media industry pleaded that we should forgive him and that everyone makes mistakes. However, surely she should have known better that her action would inevitably cause the person on the receiving end damage (especially considering that we have a posteriori cases such as the Sim Lim and Anton Casey saga just to mention a few). What is there "to forgive" if her action caused devastation to that person (especially considering how eager Singaporeans are to destroy someone based on a single reported action).
-
As expected, the taxi driver's daughter's action produced another internet "kill".
-
First, the rude passenger was identified, then insulted/humiliated online (and it would have been worst if his Facebook account was still active). Subsequently, the masses dragged his family and friends into the picture. On top of all these comes the harassment and ridicules from the public (I guess).
-
I would say that she (taxi's daughter working for the media industry) should know fully the consequences of her action (especially considering her profession and exposure) although she claimed that her action was just to get an apology.
-
She was reckless in her action to destroy someone in social media by her action. What prior cases have taught us is that the people and the family will suffer the consequences of being demonized in social media (based on a mistake).

Father of rude passenger blames self for son's behaviour. Singaporeans should all be very proud by now (or are we equally guilty)?

-
Now, are all of us saints?
-
Did Singapore education system penalize us for the first mistake we made in tests (and hence the inexplicable eagerness of the populace to penalize a person for his/her first reported mistake while ignoring all else)? If not, why do we still judge a person by one mere action/mistake (or are we shallow or angry people nowadays)?
-
People are rude, obnoxious and repugnant. That is unavoidable fact. But how do we judge a person? Based on a single action/mistake or based on the overall picture? Surely, lacking the latter shouldn't be an excuse to form biased judgement on anyone, yes!?
-
If the education system is based on judging a student's intelligence based on the first response to the first question in a test, most students will be doomed to be called "STUPID".
-
To the taxi driver's daughter (I have this to say):

1. Your father did well in this situation BUT you didn't. As a service provider, your father knew the concept of "Customers are always right (even though when they aren't)". 
2. In your line of work (based on your age of 27 yo I would gather that you have at least two years working experience), surely you have encountered unruly and rude bosses or superiors (or customers), no? For examples, superiors who demanded more of your work performance than you can handle and would be unreasonable and insinuative about your competency? Did you expose and demonize these superiors the same way as your father's "boss" (the rude passenger)?
3. People are rude but did it ever occur to you that there was a possibility that this particular rude passenger was "preconditioned" by previous/recent experience with a taxi driver (or few taxi drivers) who cheated him (and thus explained his irrational defensive behaviour and obsessive thought that taxi drivers are conniving and deceitful)? So, who are we to judge a person and what right do we have to expose this person to "netivultures" (netizen of vultures) when we are no better ourselves (e.g. failure to empathize or being more considerate)?
4. Are you proud of the result, to see the person who insulted your dad gets "justice"?
5. FYI, most people in Singapore are rude and sometimes we are rude too. We are trigger-happy to get emotional and angry at the slightest provocation, and we are impatient and reckless to form quick judgement on any other people. Probably being a too-educated-society has its disadvantage that we are becoming too demanding of society (and government) in terms of expectations. Sometimes, I think we should reflect on ourselves before seeing others in the same light.

 For the netivultures:

1. Did hiding behind IP addresses (or VPN) and anonymity shed our human-selves and reveal our true-selves?
2. To those who betrayed your friends/colleagues/neighbours/personal-data-protection-act by exposing people to netivultures, are you proud of yourself?
3. Lastly, to those involved in furnishing personal data of the above passenger, be prepared to face any legal consequences of your action for all the rules that were broken to expose the above person, e.g.

• By misusing the CCTV spy-camera mounted on the taxi clip of passenger (although the face of person wasn't shown) - I'm NOT sure if it had been a spy-cam or the regular CCTV on the road because these days, taxi are mounted with spy cams (which is invasion of privacy to me).
• By the action of taxi driver's daughter to upload it on the net (instead of handling them to police or making a police report or civil case), or
• By the taxi company in exposing certain clients' particulars (which is way serious than the rest).
• The above are all illegal (e.g. in breach of personal-data-protection-act) and legal action can be brought against those involved (especially the taxi company). If we wanted legal justice, the taxi driver's daughter or the taxi company should have brought a civil case against the rude passenger instead of putting the latter in harm/danger of public harassment (in which case you are legally liable if your action caused harm to this particular passenger). Legal definition of "harm" is broad and general and it could be defined as physical or psychological (e.g. suicidal) effect.

When will we learn?
-
We shouted freedom of expression but when we got that, it doesn't come together with responsibility/moderation in our expression. If the passenger is rude, what makes the rest of us?
-


Are we any better than the rude passenger? Read this.
I am sickly sad of the comments made in Yahoo News pertaining to Lee Kuan Yew

Update: About Bali Nine death sentence and Indonesia-Australia standoff

Previous post "About Bali Nine death sentence and Indonesia-Australia standoff". Latest update, "Indonesia rejects Australian offer to pay for pair's jail time" (Yahoo Sg).
-
Indonesia has rejected offer to maintain pair's jail time. The decision is probably made to prevent future clemency for drug traffickers.
-
Anyway, heroin is no recreational drug. Heroin is hardcore drug and very addictive. Difficulty in withdrawal (or discontinuation from usage) is the reason addicts resort to crimes (and some resorted to violence) in order to get the next kick. Prostitution/slavery is associated with heroin usage as well. What more is there to say? Heroin and morphine (although given to terminally ill and suffering patients) shouldn't be misused for monetary gain while destroying/enslaving healthy lives.
-
8.3 kg is a lot of heroin. Note that a newborn weighs about 3 kg. So the amount of heroin Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran (along the Bali Nine) were dealing corresponds to almost three newborn babies.
-
How many lives/families would have been affected/destroyed if this quantity was used to entice new drug abusers (those "adventurous" young minds)?
-
It's true that alcohol and cigarettes are addictive too, but there is no withdrawal symptoms to deal with and addicts are not desperate that they have to resort to crime to get the next kick. Similarly, sniffing glues, drinking concocted cough syrup, and smoking pots are addictive but they too don't possess the difficult to handle withdrawal symptoms that really push addicts into desperation to get the next dose.
-
So, heroin is dangerous.
-
Other references

• What about the victims of the heroin trade? (ABC)

About Bali Nine death sentence and Indonesia-Australia standoff

This is the latest news I followed, "Indonesians collect coins to protest Australian tsunami comments" (Yahoo 10 March 2015).
-
I have no objection to death sentence for convicted drug traffickers. It is not revenge killing, BUT more to removing threats from society. Similarly, death sentence to Bali Bombing perpetrators served to remove threats from society. In this case, Australians and their government kept mum over the sentencing. Is there selective objection over death sentence here?
-
Is Australia aware of the devastation caused by heroine (which is not RECREATIONAL drug) to any society?
-
Now, if Australia really insist on not letting these Australian drug lords being subjected to death sentence, and was willing to dig-out the old issue of humanitarian aid it selflessly volunteered during the 2005 Tsunami crisis (Publicity then, Shame now - Abbott's blunder), then if I am with the Indonesian government, I would have suggested to the higher-up to just accept Australia's demand of not giving death sentence to these Australian drug lords.
-
On two conditions.
-
These two Australians will be locked up in Indonesian prison FOREVER.
-
The cost of maintaining them will be footed by Australia, in which case the well-being of these two prisoners will be dependent on the amount paid by Australia.

-
I would say, AUD 20,000 per month per head wouldn't be too big a deal. On top of that, whatever security measures, medical bill, and additional costs will be borne by Australia. Also, if these two prisoners escaped (due to whatever reason), Australia will have to pay compensation to Indonesia for "letting loose" two threats to Indonesian society yet again.
-

Just an alternative thought.

I am sickly sad of the comments made in Yahoo News pertaining to Lee Kuan Yew

For those who hated Lee Kuan Yew for whatever reason they might possibly have, I felt sorry for these people who have written hateful, insensitive, and wicked comments on Yahoo News, especially when LKY is severely ill.
-
I don't understand... the hate.
-
They griped about many things that LKY did wrongly; but when something good was done to Singapore, these people have no qualm to say that it was all because of the government's machinery/people that made the good things happen AND NOT LKY. Isn't that "shooting your own foot"? Do these people mean that bad things happened solely because of LKY's planning and execution, but when good thing happens, it is due to the government's (or people on payroll) planning and execution (and NOT LKY)? I just can't accept such argument.
-
For those who hates LKY. Please hate him for the right reasons.
-
Almost all of Singapore's (or government's) decisions, whether GOOD or BAD, are not LKY's doing alone. FYI, Singapore has plenty of "EXPERTS/CONSULTANTS" (be it foreign or local talents) working with the government. Also, the government machinery is not composed solely of PAP supporters, but also pro-opposition's as well (bear in mind that almost 40% of populace is pro-opposition and they are bound to be on the payroll in government sectors). So, how the heck can a person like LKY be able to solely plan, execute and implement all decisions in Singapore (to the "detriment of the populace")?
-
Similar to human (to err), government plans and executes policies to see if they work (like a gamble but more like an "educated gamble"). If certain policies are unfavorable to the populace/circumstances, the government will have no choice but to remove/retract them. If the policies worked, they are maintained until circumstances rendered it useless/obsolete or requiring re-tweaking. How can Singapore be successful if people are not willing to "gamble" on policy? Do we follow footsteps of nations who succeeded in certain policy, e.g. be copycats (is there even a country similar to Singapore in the world to copy)? Or do we dare to take the risk and venture out in spite of the criticisms (as nothing ventured nothing gained)?
-
For government policies to fail or being unfavorable are natural.
-
Now, in a democratic society, what must a leader do if 40% of populace disagrees while 60% agrees to a policy? What is the right thing to do as a leader of a democratic society, especially after exhausting all the persuasion and deliberation?
-
Imagine that you are the head of family and decided to go Sydney for vacation. However, half of your family members wanted to go to Taiwan instead. Do you make the right decision by splitting your family into two and send one part off to Taiwan while the other half to Sydney? Or do you go along with the majority or with the aged-and-wise (e.g. grandparent)? Or do you put the vacation on hold until you can get a 100% agreement?
-
(Touch wood) Imagine if you are the eldest in the family and your siblings are arguing with you on whether to proceed with chemotherapy on your single parent 3rd stage cancer. Half agreed to it while the other half preferred not to. Your mum had earlier gave you the mandate (as of a democratic leader) to decide on her behalf, what say you?
-
Well, that is how leaders such as LKY has to deal with implementing policies daily. There is no pleasing of everyone in Singapore and the chances of a democratic leader stepping on someone's toe is inevitably frequent. Although I accept that not everyone will like LKY, but I can't accept the hurtful and insensitive comments hurling in cyberspace cursing someone who is severely ill. If you can't respect LKY, just keep your peace. Is that difficult to do?
-
Imagine if your boss hates you so much that when you ask him to write a reference/recommendation letter, he wrote a hateful and unflattering letter to your prospective boss. Can you deal with that? If not, then do as what responsible bosses (in the above circumstances) should do, i.e. decline to write the reference/recommendation letter. That is the most civil thing to do!

-
Sigh, something is seriously wrong in Sg Yahoo News readers, which is sad because it also goes to show how unhappy they are currently. That could be a reason for them to harbour the need to "hurt someone" (with hurtful comments), which in return could make their daily pain more bearable.
-
In order for me not to be tangled into this web of despair and hate, I have decided that I will try to skip Yahoo News comment even more. FYI, the reason I browsed the Yahoo comment section (which I rarely do, except today) was to read about Singaporeans wishing the bests for our ex-PM. Alas, I was disappointed.
-
It also reminded me of the time when I was attached briefly in the US and I was also reading Yahoo News then. It was very identical to what is seen in Singapore Yahoo News. However, the number of hateful and angry comments outnumbered Singapore's comments by tens of thousands instead of hundreds.
-
The issue mainly involved Terrorists, Chinese taking away the economy (it used to be the Japanese not long ago as depicted in Michael Crichton Rising Sun), foreigners taking away jobs, US corporations shifting operation overseas and deprive locals of jobs, tax evasion by corporate bodies working in foreign lands, foreign made product populating local stores out-competing locally produced items, bright foreign students over-taking US universities, anti-Walmart sentiments for supporting Chinese made goods, etc.
-
My only hope is that, the less than 200 comments (equivalent to unhappy Singaporeans) in Yahoo comment will not grow any bigger. At least that will indicate to me that there are Singaporeans who are successful and happy in life (be it job, partner, and family).
-
Peace.