Search the Community

Hi MCFers, I am here to announce another piece of good news to all of you. On top of having the Threads of the Month Contest, we will be introducing the ‘Most Worthy Thread of the Month’ Contest. We’re seeing some really good and quality threads/posts by some of the members here but unfortunately, they’ve come short of winning ‘TOTM’ due to popularity votes. So this is where this contest comes in. Think of it as a wildcard. Let’s cut to the chase. What’s deemed worthy? Must it be car related? Anything under the sun. We’re not kidding. If you’re a wanderlust, it could be your own travel thread complete with pictures, advice, tips on how to travel better, cheaper, and smarter so everyone can explore the world on a budget too. If you’re a hardcore car enthusiast, which is what this forum is all about, share with members your crazy DIY fixes, modifications, latest improvisations etc. Points to note: - There will only be ONE winner for Most Worthy Thread of the Month - It will be selected by the Internal Moderators - It is possible to win both Thread of the Month and Most Worthy Thread of the Month - Winner will be announced by the 15th of every month - No winner will be announced for any particular month if no threads are selected PRIZE: $200 Petrol or NTUC Vouchers So.... First Winner for Most Worthy Thread of the Month (Moderator's Choice) Congratulations to @Vratenza for being the FIRST winner for Most Worthy Thread of the Month – Wheel Spacer Installation DIY http://www.mycarforum.com/topic/2705970-wheel-spacer-installation-diy/?hl=%2Bwheel+%2Bspacer Your effort in making the thread informative and instructional has not gone unnoticed! We will contact you shortly via PM .

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/bilahari-kausikan-on-the/2235302.html Sent from Channel NewsAsia Android app. SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has posted on Facebook a speech by Ambassador-at-Large Bilahari Kausikan, which was delivered on Oct 31, when Fitzwilliam College of Cambridge University held a conference on the legacy of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Below is PM Lee's post in full, including the speech by Mr Kausikan: Last Saturday, Fitzwilliam College (my father’s old college) of Cambridge University held a conference on the legacy of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Ambassador-at-Large Bilahari Kausikan spoke at the event. He recounted his personal experience working with Mr Lee, and made telling points about the external challenges that a small country in Southeast Asia will always face. I found it well worth reading, and hope you will too. - LHL Ambassador-at-Large Bilahari Kausikan spoke at a Conference on the legacy of Lee Kuan Yew and the future of Singapore at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, on 31 October 2015. Thank you for inviting me to join you in paying tribute to the memory and legacy of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. My generation of Singapore Foreign Service officers were privileged to have had the opportunity to work with Mr Lee and his comrades: Dr Goh Keng Swee and Mr S Rajaratnam. These three men defined the essentials of our foreign policy. Their ideas were formed by the imperatives of survival in the less than benign environment in which Singapore found itself on 10th August 1965, the morning after what was politely termed ‘Separation’. My colleagues and I learnt our trade from them. We did so in very humble capacities: taking notes at their meetings or seeing to the necessities of their travels, but still privileged to observe them at close quarters and absorb something of their modes of thought and operating style. It was a unique apprenticeship. Then as we assumed more senior positions, we came to understand a little more of their considerations by sitting-in on their policy discussions and even occasionally contributed our mite to their decisions. Some of us had studied international relations as an academic subject before joining the Foreign Service. But after 35 years, I have concluded that any resemblance between what I had studied and what I eventually did for a living was purely coincidental. Our real education in the realities of the diplomacy of a small country only started when our professional lives were touched, however tangentially, by Mr Lee and his comrades. The most valuable thing they imparted to us was a cast of mind. Mr Rajaratnam, our first Foreign Minister, has described his first meeting with the international press as Foreign Minister. It was only a few days after we had independence thrust upon us. Relations with Malaysia were fraught with racial tension; Sukarno’s Indonesia was still fighting an undeclared war against us and to our north in Indochina, the Cold War had turned hot. The newsmen were braying for information on how newly independent Singapore would conduct itself. ‘What’, Mr Rajaratnam told us he asked Mr Lee, ‘shall I tell them?’ ‘Just wear a tie, Raja”, was the answer, ‘you’ll think of something’. Big countries may delude themselves about being always in control of events. Small countries cannot afford such illusions. For small countries, foreign policy is usually a series of not always neat or consistent improvisations to a messy and unpredictable reality. The future can at best be only dimly glimpsed and in any case cares not a whit for your concerns. So you must pragmatically adapt yourself to it. One must of course set goals. But having done so, more often than not the most one can do is keep a distant star in sight as one tacks hither and tither to avoid treacherous reefs or to scoop up opportunities that may drift within reach. Successful navigation requires a clinical – indeed cold-blooded – appreciation of the world as it is and not as you may wish it to be. This is harder than you may think. Diplomacy is an area of human endeavour that is more than usually susceptible to self-deception and wishful thinking. Mr Lee and his comrades were not devoid of idealism. Singapore as it is today would not otherwise exist. They risked their lives to make it so. But idealism must be rooted in a hard-headed understanding of the realities of human nature and power. Without power nothing can be achieved. And even with power not everything desirable will always be feasible. No matter how fervently one may wish that they may be liberated from the surly bonds of earth, pigs are never going to sprout wings and fly. Understanding requires information. Mr Lee had intense intellectual curiosity. He sought information without regard for hierarchy. He was tolerant of alternate views or at any rate, he was tolerant of the young and brash desk officer as I then was who, too green to know that the tiger is dangerous, ventured on occasion to argue with him. The tiger’s roar is fearsome and its fangs are sharp. Mr Lee sometimes tried to intimidate you into agreement. But if you stood your ground with reasoned arguments, he listened even if he did not agree. And I am here to tell the tale. Mr Lee and his comrades were impatient of complexity for complexity’s sake; for the sake of showing off how clever one was. He did not suffer fools. If he sought a view, it was to be taken for granted you had something useful to say and would say it in the fewest possible words. And if you didn’t know, say so. What Mr Lee and his comrades possessed to a greater degree than anyone else I have ever met, was an uncanny ability to zero into the core of even the most complicated problem or situation. They wielded Occam’s razor with great intellectual ruthlessness, slashing through the pious obfuscations which too often shroud international issues. Margaret Thatcher once said of Mr Lee: ‘He was never wrong’. That is of course, not true. Nobody can be always right, particularly in international affairs where most of the time most of the factors are going to be unknown or only partially known and where even the effort to know may change what you are trying to know But Mr Lee and his comrades were never shy about changing their minds. Again this is harder than you may think. Too often vested interests, stubbornness or just plain pride stands in the way. Too many people believe their own propaganda. Mr Lee and his comrades avoided this most common of pitfalls because their laser-like focus was always the national interest of Singapore. And they never confused ideology with interest. Diplomacy is not all about being pleasant or making oneself agreeable. It is about defending and advancing the national interest, preferably by being pleasant and agreeable, but if necessary by any appropriate means. In this respect, having to stand your ground in the face of the tiger’s roar – and in the shadows of diplomatic politesse lurk many wild beasts – was another valuable lesson. This is particularly so in Southeast Asia, where majority Chinese Singapore which organizes itself on the basis of multiracial meritocracy, is something of an anomaly. We live in a region where the Chinese are typically a minority and not a particularly welcome one, and where our neighbours organize themselves on the basis of very different principles. Perhaps Mr Lee’s greatest mistake was, during the period when we were part of Malaysia, to underestimate the lengths to which the Malay leadership in Malaysia would go to defend ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ – Malay dominance. It was not a mistake that he or any of our leaders ever made again. The basic issue in Singapore’s relations with our neighbours is existential: the implicit challenge that by its very existence a Chinese majority Singapore organized on the basis of multiracial meritocracy poses to systems organized on the basis of different and ultimately irreconcilable principles. That we have the temerity to be successful, adds to the offence. None of this means we cannot cooperate with our neighbours: we must, we can and we do. But we must do so from a position of strength. Mr Lee was a lawyer and had a deep belief in the rule of law. Yet as a former Chief of the Malaysian Armed Forces has recounted, Mr Lee told him: “if PAS comes into power … and tries to meddle with the water in Johor Bahru, I’ll move my troops in. I will not wait for the Security Council to solve this little problem.” But Mr Lee also once told an Israeli General who had helped start our armed forces that Singapore had learnt two things from Israel: how to be strong, and how not to use our strength; meaning that it is necessary to get along with neighbours and no country can live in perpetual conflict with its neighbours. But we are different and we must remain different to survive. Small countries have no intrinsic relevance. To small countries, relevance is an artefact created by human endeavour and having been created, must be maintained by human endeavour. To remain relevant we cannot be ordinary. We cannot be just like our neighbours. We have to be extraordinary. Yet being extraordinary does not always endear us to our neighbours. The management of this paradox lies at the heart of our foreign policy and prescribes our most fundamental approaches: maintaining balance in Southeast Asia by facilitating the engagement of all major powers in our region, while fostering regional cooperation through ASEAN and maintaining our edge and keeping our powder dry. Singapore and Southeast Asia in 2015 is obviously not the same as Singapore and Southeast Asia in 1965. But some things do not change: our geopolitical situation and how our neighbours chose to organize themselves. The parameters of choice for small countries are never overly broad. The approach that Mr Lee and his comrades bequeathed to my generation of Foreign Service Officers and which we have tried to impart to our successors, still serves us well. Our environment is still complicated and perilous. The US and China are competing for influence with a greater than usual intensity as they grope towards a new accommodation with each other and the region. Malaysia is on a political trajectory that has heightened racial and religious tensions and may well lead to violence. The haze that regularly envelopes Southeast Asia is a reminder that post-Suharto Indonesia is still an incoherent and rent-seeking polity which has yet to reach a stable political equilibrium. The key challenge is internal: that a new generation of Singaporeans will take the achievements of Mr Lee and his comrades for granted as the natural order of things and be persuaded that we are no longer vulnerable. Some opposition politicians and their fellow travellers among the intelligentsia have tried to do just that. They either do not understand their own country and region or place their ambitions above the national interest. Fortunately, as the results of our recent General Election have demonstrated, the majority of my compatriots do not believe them

1.) Oh no they didn’t. Mitch O'Connell 2.) I know this is wordplay, but beating your wife is fun? Mitch O'Connell 3.) There you go, ladies. Decide on the furniture. Mitch O'Connell 4.) SIGH. Mitch O'Connell 5.) Priorities? Not so much. Mitch O'Connell 6.) Oh man. Mitch O'Connell 7.) Because women totally do that. Mitch O'Connell 8.) Women: getting promoted for getting good coffee. Mitch O'Connell 9.) I can’t even… Mitch O'Connell 10.) This was almost funny, for a second. Mitch O'Connell 11.) So this was okay to print? Mitch O'Connell 12.) Uh-huh. Mitch O'Connell 13.) For a second, I thought this was going to be inspirational. Mitch O'Connell 14.) I don’t get the connection. Mitch O'Connell 15.) We get it, women are objects to you. Read more at http://www.viralnova.com/incredibly-sexist-ads/#5CzkKOAJw13jy7F3.99

Dear all, If you have recommendations of a thrust-worthy used car dealer, appreciate if you could drop me a PM. Thanks!

Having own the Optra for almost 3 years, I don't really have any problem with the car other than having to change the battery recently and 1 tail lamp bulb. The other comment I have with my Chevy is, some noise here and there which is also very apparent with Japanese cars that I owned previously. I guess just too many plastic parts. I am starting this poll just to understand from owners how they feel about their car and if given a 2nd chance, would they buy back a Chevy? Of course you should not take the design or types (2 doors to 4 doors, etc) into consideration. Just that particular car performance alone.

That opponent is me la. Euro R with what looked like his mother on the side raced a 2000kg korean suv with half his power and double his weight :) It started out very normally as I approached the 1st traffic lights. Slowed down and stopped beside him. Knowing the traffic lights timing in my area very well, I proceeded to the next traffic light 200m away slowly as I knew they would be red soon eough. So i plodded along at 2000rpm slowly to the next traffic lights and red it was. again, on that lonely road, it was euro r beside me and no one else. maybe a singular motorbike behind us. The third traffic light was 500m away and I knew if I was quick enough, I could avoid being caught in it. So I depressed my accelerator halfway. Halfway only and my heavy suv picked up briskly till about 4000rpm before it changed gears. At about 90km/h (on a 60km/h road)I heard the loudest v-tec growl beside me! That heroic euro r must have imagined that I was racing him and he was full throttle bursting with vtec goodness chasing me down the road. HE MUST HAVE FELT THAT AN SUV TWICE HIS WEIGHT AND HALF HIS POWER A WORTHY OPPONENT! With his lady passenger probably his mother holding tight in her seat, he roared past me at about 120km/h and continued to roar down the quiet road showing me his titanium exhausts! At this pint, i immediately activated my NOS! no la, its just wishful thinking. I immediately released my accelerator and let slowed to 70km/h to let this euro r challenger eat me and boy, did i smell his titanium flavoured smoke. soon, i saw him at the next traffic light while i detoured into the expressway. today is my happiest day. A euro r found my car worthy of racing with! Normally, even nissan sunnys do not want to race me but today, a euro r with a mother looking like lady found me a worthy competitor. i am so happy that my korean suv has reached that standard. And I thought that for the next few years I would only have fun frightening all those delivery lorries. An euro R! yippeee.

I know bomb shelter is build to protect us. Maybe need some experts debate. I find it defeat the purpose. 1. I rather have a storeroom comparing to bomb shelter. It is because the bomb shelter's door is so damn heavy and so ugly, ended up, i have to spend additional reno cash to have a fixture to cover it. 2. Bomb shelter can protect u from earthquake or attack. Oh come on la, imagine the entire building ganna attack, all the cements cracked, leaving a tall metal building standing, dont the enemy knows that the building got something inside, also, the lever can tell is a door liao. Hiding inside, how long can you hide? I damn dont like the bomb shelter, but bo pian, HDB interior designer /craps to me la.

something i took from AROC http://www.channel4.com/apps26/4car/jsp/ma...40&storyid=2440

as above..pls advise.

as bove..pls advise..thks

Hi all Have been wondering whether to buy a 1992-1993 Toyota Corolla / Corona that has its COE extended for another 10 years... Are Toyota cars who has aged more than 10 years reliable? Also heard that road tax and insurance would be problematic as well... Please enlighten. Thanks.