Directed by David Cameron and supported by the coalition production crew, with Theresa May as the lead female verbal puppet, set off by muted Nick Clegg in the name of comprises-made-to-coalition-government, together had presented the latest episode of the long-winded austerity drama, Cut in what most business leaders and political correspondents are at odds over – the immigration cap (on highly skilled and skilled workers).

They claimed it as a vital approach to curb the country’s rising unemployment rate currently stands at 7.9% or 2.5 million and a patriotic move to return British jobs to British workers. They further emphasised the imposition will duly reduce the pressure exerted on immigration-related social welfare including schools, hospitals, council housings and other public services, which will ultimately helps the coalition government to achieve its target on fiscal tightening policies.

Undeniably the Tory has been charged with the duty to materialise what it promised in the general election – to reduce net immigration. But, in my opinion, the proposition serves not as an effective formulation to deal with successfully the upward spiral of immigration but merely a brainchild of political gimmick.

Firstly, the cap was ill-targeted. A friendly reminder to my dear readers, the cap is aimed at reducing the admission of non-EU economic immigrants under the Tier 1 (highly skilled) and Tier 2 (skilled) points based system, which represents a derisory 27,000 out of all the massive 406,000 approved visas, or 6.5% in the first three months of 2010 (Source: ONS). I am bewildered. Just how significant the impact of a cap like this will have on improving the jobless figure and on easing the pressure of public services? Neither.

Under the point based system invented by the Labour government, Tier 1 visas are granted to migrants without a guaranteed job because they are likely to generate wealth and expand the economy. And my profound confusion expands uncontrollably over the logic to restrain workers of this type to enter the country and to stimulate the growth of, if not rescue, the economy from the aftermath of an unprecedented economic disaster. And for no other reason, highly skilled workers are imported for a good cause – to fill up the talent fissure the country has failed to seal. The saying on returning British jobs to British workers is thus simply ill-founded and unjustifiable.

And the ability of these talented individuals to secure employments leads me to question on why they are blamed as the parasitical recipients of social welfare including social housing. If we scrutinise the provision of social housing and other welfare benefits currently burdening the indebted government, it is not challenging to realise the claimants are, of course the British, and an enormous population of Eastern European moved from their respective countries under the European Free Trade Agreement after being enticed by the UK’s generous welfare system. And in fact, immigrations within the EU forms more than a third of the total immigration into the UK each year.

But then of course, many would argue since British are allowed to purchase assets and take up employments in mainland Europe, it is only fair if their European counterparts enjoy similar privilege. Moreover, for jobs which the British deemed themselves to be too conceited to commit, for examples, construction, cleaning, or even in coffee shops, which in my humble opinion are all British jobs, the reliability of their European peers is indisputable. So will tossing them back when you are in the midst of a crisis sound a tad inglorious?

On the topic of an effective (cost) cut, I compare it with domestic cost saving and corporate restructure. If you want to save on domestic expenses significantly, you do no bet on reducing the purchase of food that supplies you with immense energy to work, you move to a simple and crude house in tinier size. If you plan on downsizing an organisation, you do not only reduce the amount of workforce, but also make non-contributory departments redundant via corporate consolidation. And if you are BP endeavouring to contain oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, you know in the long run, the more effective and permanent solution is not to capture oil spilled through containment cap but to seal the source with relief wells.

So now, if you were the leader of the coalition government, and you were determined to reduce net immigration, are you going to eat your own words and go around violating your own promise for the creation of an open business environment  that would help stimulate economic growth, by limiting the import of highly skilled and skilled workers this country badly needs? Will you revolve around the peripheral of immigration border? Or will you contemplate a more radical reform that may allow a generous chuck of unmanageable immigrants?

The roasting summer heat currently permeates the streets of London accentuates the obscenity of remembering the prolonged winter blizzard just a couple of months ago. And just when my body is teetering on the brink of a complete melt, the merciless human-induced heat wave originated from down under engulfed my struggling effort to stay intact and had completely liquefied me.

In just a night, my already cruising prevailing neighbourhood was bombarded by the most blatant and effective advertising agenda I’ve ever witnessed. And just when I confined the coverage to the vicinity of my gay-dominated village, Aussiebum, the international underclothing manufacturer from Australia famous for its broad gay fan base, and evidently also the mastermind responsible for this sexually unreserved campaign, has erected identical advertisement literally across the entire London town. 

Leaving aside the discussion on whether the company has pushed the boundary too far to challenge the legal allowance for public display of raunchy images, I doubt if anyone has failed to notice, let alone to resist the erotic temptation to follow the hunky model’s chiselled chests down to his washboard abs before reaching at the dangerously skimpy black swimming trunk that houses almost unsuccessfully his well-endowed manhood that is screaming noisily to escape from its casing. Ugh, I need a napkin to wipe the saliva drooling down my chin off!

Despite of all the careful nurture of conservative oriental virtues, I give no reprimand to this unpretentious marketing campaign. In fact, for no other reason, I welcome it with open arms for it has at least motivated me to go out from my house more often than I would be. A minor but significant gesture that might help trimming away my body fat and fit myself into one of these trunks.

But do I want to rush my head to the departmental store immediately for an impulsive and lustful purchase? As much as I am lubriciously seduced by the model, I remain adamant that there is ought to be mega body sculpting construction before my confidence braves me for an equally impactful public showcase of my own shell.

Nevertheless, I suspect there are already plenty of advocates. And to be honest, I can’t wait the sights for sore eyes. Summer days are too warm to stay indoor but we all need a reason to stay out. And if there is no other reason, perhaps a vain hope in meeting a guy as in the advertisement who will make you scream out: f**k me!

I love Sex and the City the series and have been replaying the series for numerous times. So I was ecstatic when the first Sex and the City Movie was released. Despite the frenetic buzz, I thought the movie was a tad overrated. Bearing the disappointment from the first movie, however, I still devoted my most ardent support and reported to the cinema at the quickest possible pace upon the screening of the sequel.

The frantic (negative) reviews on the movie probably have convinced you that the movie is fairly disposable. However, I personally see it as a quantum leap from the the first movie, with reservation. At the very least, the entertaining value of the movie deserves compliments. Nevertheless, it doesn’t discount the movie from criticisms.

First of all, suggesting the workaholic Miranda to quit her job was an insane idea. Remember the witty utterance by bewildered Miranda when she discovered that she has got pregnant by Steve: “I don’t have time for this baby. I don’t even have time to schedule an abortion.”? That is was how Miranda loves her job. Even though scripting her resignation over a no-talking hand gesture by her superior was a little insulting to audience’s intelligence, one must admit that the related scenes were rather amusing. Furthermore, characters evolve.

Talking about the evolvement of characters, when the shift of Miranda from career-centred to family-centred was further emphasised by Charlotte’s motherhood distress, I was jittery that the film will risk draining drastically into the gully of  Desperate Housewives’ style dull and dramatic domestic affairs. However, one must then again admit that the heart-to-heart conversation between the two mothers, at the presence of cocktails of course, was an intelligent and humorous plot. Honestly, who will be able resist the urge to laugh out hysterically when Charlotte confessed “How could I lose the nanny?”

Perhaps the only character that didn’t evolve was Samantha. She, inherited her sexual adventurer spirit repeatedly highlighted from the series and the first movie, was indeed the focus point of the movie. Although separated the “girls” from their familiar New York streets (and the tantalising men) was again intolerable, the scene where Samantha’s unreserved seduction on hunky architect Rikard, which caused the latter to demonstrate an obscene erection in public that offended a conservative Arabian couple, was immensely entertaining. And although the condom scene where the eccentric Samantha irrationally provoked the conservative Arabian (men) community was slightly exaggerating, it was again a highly entertaining plot.

However, I struggled to remember anything in particular when it comes to Carrie, except that the rapid ageing of Sarah Jessica Parker had caught my undivided attention. Did you notice how her fake-tanned skin looks rugged like a dried mussel and the sagging muscles around her arms? And it really was hurting the eyes to watch how Aiden swallow his saliva forcefully signalling he was sexually aroused by the apparently old Carrie’s presence in her lustful outfit. And to be honest, her marriage crisis with Mr. Big was just lack of intensity. It really was sad that the centre character has lost her charm.

When it comes to the supposed dazzling array of outfits, I thought it showcased a severe wardrobe malfunction throughout the film. Did you see what Charlotte was wearing when the four characters emerged from a hill of Arabian desert? It was spandex yoga outfit, disastrously sewn using leftover pieces of cloth decorated by some vast pieces of carelessly picked material more suitable to be used as curtain.

To wrap things up, I stick to my view that this isn’t Sex and the City since there isn’t much about the city but plentiful of Arabian desert. Nevertheless, who would have cared when the comedy element never failed to fill the two hours up with almost constant laughter? And just why was the rating worse than the first movie when it was much more enjoyable to watch?

“I can see you have changed a lot: from enthusiastic those days to dull at present,” a recent count from my ex-course mate which had stunned me greatly.

Something which I hate to admit, but the nasty politics at work that threatened my existence, the stress to excel in the only job interview from more than 100 job applications, the pressure from an expiring visa and the stringent requirements for an extension, the envy of peer success, the uncertainty in my future path, and the 5 break ups with the same person in 6 months have really worn me down.

I am exhausted and now I want to return to smiles, joys, energy and ambitions. It is time to change for good.