If it's unbelievable, believe it is so!

[Note: The posting below should have been dated 12 May. But the server seemed to have had a glitch on FRIDAY MAY 13, and it was wiped out, so here is the item again.]

I had to vote again!

Actually, I had gone to an NTUC Income branch to pay an insurance premium. That done, even before I had walked away, I received a text message on my cellphone inviting me to respond to a survey on the service just rendered by the staff member. This was the choice I had to make:

"Pls rate our service from 1 to 6 where 1 is Undesirable and 6 is Unbelievable. We appreciate yr response."

I didn't know how to respond! So I put a 5, telling myself that this number is for "Believable".  (Hmmm... that begs the question, what number would "Desirable" be? For sure, that branch does have pretty counter staff). And in a sense, that NTUC Income survey scale can be analogous to voting in an election, if one is faced with the choice between an undesirable candidate and an unbelievable candidate.

Still in this undesirable/unbelievable twilight zone, my friend Kim Ann texted me to say the relevant authority's letter telling him to renew his dog's licence had arrived in the mail. This is what his text message said:

"Just noticed that in the dog licence renewal notice, my name appears above the dog licence number with sex as 'neutered male'."

Worried for my own manhood, I went to check the licence for my dog. Whew! My dog's licence fortunately had two clearly separated boxes, "Particulars of Dog Owner" and "Description of Dog". Maybe the relevant authority has since changed the licence's format, and the next time I go and renew my pooch's licence, I will have to forgo two of my most precious assets.

Assets-wise, I noticed that, nowadays, those newpaper ads touting "get rich" schemes (from how to become a multiple-property owner to becoming the next Warren Buffett in three easy steps), reclaiming your crowning glory, shedding those unwanted kilos, and improving your "career line" (Google this term if you have no idea what it means) now each carry -- in small print -- a bluntly worded caveat, akin to the "Cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer" label that is mandatory on cigarette packs.

Get-rich schemes -- "All forms of trading and investments carry risks. Such activities may not be suitable for everyone."

Hair loss treatment -- "There is no scientific proof that any product (except certain registered medicinal products) or service can retard hair loss or promote hair growth."

Slimming programmes -- "There is no scientific proof that any slimming programme can achieve permanent weight loss except when accompanied by a balanced diet and regular exercise." [My own comment here: Just a balanced diet and regular exercise usually does the job!] 

Breast enhancement -- "There is no scientific proof that any non-surgical treatment currently available can enlarge breasts."

So, caveat emptor. But if such a mandated "truth in advertising" regime works, why are people still smoking cigarettes? A sucker is born every minute, they say.