Cheaper to stay in hotel

The cost of staying in the govt General hospital for acute illness is $1000 a day. And for community public hospitals, it is several hundred a day. I heard the number $400 daily. Compare this to staying in a budget hotel, plus simple food and employing a maid to look after the patient, it may not come to $200 a day. Just give the maid a little training or even even employed qualified foreign nurses will still be cheaper. Incidentally how many people can afford $1000 or $400 a day if it is going to be more than a month? I am guessing how much it will cost per day in Mt E or Gleneagles?

What happens to our excellent relations with the Indonesians?

The sand ban, the granite ban, the bombing of a Singaporean owned company in Karimun and the arrest of their executives, Singaporeans. Now they are going after Temasek's holdings in their telco companies. And the Riau islanders are protesting the joint military agreement and exercises in the islands. What's next? All the signs are written clearly on the wall, that they do not want to friendly with us. Singapore should quietly beat the retreat. Hopefully that will make them happier.

Who is responsible? - UNSW

The UNSW staff held a meeting with the students and parents affected by the closure at Trader's Hotel yesterday and were bombed by the parents. It is hardly imaginable for a highly regarded institution and academics to do such a thing. Unbelieveable! The classes should not have started at all and the students need not waste their time and resources to go through such a slipshod arrangement. Where is the duty and due diligence done to take in the students only to close the university barely 3 months after classes started? The parents cannot be faulted for having trust in the UNSW which is a reputable university run by reputable professionals. But the situation is definitely unjustifiable and they should sue them for compensation. Singapore should also sue them for damaging our image as an education hub.

Go for right wage measures or risk losing edge: Swee Say

Go for right wage measures or risk losing edge: Swee Say 'Labour chief Lim Swee Say cautioned companies against being "seduced" by the easy option of paying higher basic wages to attract workers. Such a measure will only erode their competitive edge in the long term or force them to trim staff in lean times, he told reporters yesterday during a visit to a training.' by Keith Lin in the Straits Times

Was there public outrage?

The judge said there was public outrage on the case about a preacher having 10 wives and fathering 64 children and the wives encouraging their daughters to have sex with the father preacher. Was there any public outrage? If there was, this thing would not have happened and been going on for so long. It is not sex between two frogs or many frogs at the bottom of a well and not visible to anyone. It occurred right before the eyes of many people, the whole community and neighbourhood cannot be blind to it. How could this thing go on for so long without anyone putting a stop to it at the early stages?

pay according to performance

NWC linked pay hike with productivity The NWC recommendation suggested that employers should pay employees more when there is an increase in productivity. I think this is a bit tedious to compute. An easier way will be to commission a salary survey on comparative wage levels and then adjust the salaries accordingly when they are found to be lower than the market. It will be more objective and impartial if done by a neutral party. This is especially effective and applicable when productivity is very difficult to measure. And sometimes the lower productivity or performance could be due market forces or events beyond the employees control. And at the lower level, their performance will often be affected by many more factors, including those of their bosses.

A new buzz, a fiasco

There is a new kind of buzz in town, one that is being repeated quite often these days and would tarnish the Singapore brand. We are reputed as a country where all things work. Once we put up something, we can sleep in peace that it will be successful. The University of NSW closed down after only two months and with 148 students, Singaporeans and foreigners, stranded. It would not happen if it was a Singapore run university. We don't do this kind of things. But even if it is an Australian university, it happens in our land and we will somehow be linked to it. Our Singapore brand cannot keep getting this kind of bashing. And the students were only told after the decision to close was made and announced. Well, only 148. No big deal. Anyway, they should expect such things can happen to a new set up that does not have a Singapore brand. It is caveat emptor. They went in with their eyes open and knew the risk. In a way it is also a kind of progress for Singapore. It shows that we are taking more risk and even risky projects that were not well thought through and with insufficient finances. This is good for Singapore as we will become a riskier country that encourages everyone to be more cautious and risk aware.

Return of the Knight

It is good that Glen Knight is allowed to practise his trade again. He had gone through very rough time and had paid a very heavy price for his mistakes. He took the punishment gentlemanly and quietly and had lived a life of a reform man, in the wilderness. Though the reason to take him back into the law fraternity was because of the good words of eminent lawyers, I am more impressed by Knight himself. He is every inch a repent man. He went about his life in his darkest hours, alone, far from the main stream of all the glamorous happenings. He could be a very rich man today if not of the lapses in his life. He deserves to start life anew, albeit too late. He was out cold for too long for not too major offences that he committed. It is good that he is given a second chance.

Legalise insider trading

A letter from a Charles Tan in the Today paper suggested that insider trading should be legalised. There is nothing for me say when people cannot see what this will lead to. But this is another brutal truth. When one is in a position of power or authority and accessible to sensitve information, connections etc, it is ok to take advantage of the situation to fatten one's pocket. Are we ready for the Singapore of the future?

Why is Singapore trying to explain the IDR Committee

Why is Singapore trying to explain the IDR Committee Why is Singapore taking on the task to explain to the Malaysians that we have no interest in meddling with Malaysian affairs or taking over the sovereignty of the IDR through the joint committee? It is a red herring that we should not be involved. The more we try to explain a stupidity, the more will stupid people read into our intention when there is none. The IDR is a Malaysian proposal to be developed in Malaysian soil. To have Malaysians questioning their own ability to manage the IDR and even toying with the fear of losing their sovereignty is unbelieveable. Unless the Malaysians are really that low in their ability to give away their sovereignty without knowing. Maybe this is possible and their concern is real. Don't they have talented people to manage the IDR to their advantage? And maintaining sovereignty within one's soil, with the full support of the law and the law enforcing agencies, you do not need much brains to do that. How could the village chiefs even think that it is clever to suggest that it can happen? Singapore is best to shut up and let them play their own political wayang. It is not very clever of us to try to explain away their self created paranoia.

Age of citizen journalism is here

And this is what the media big bosses are saying. Their comments are justified by the coverage of people on the ground, at the scene, shooting and relaying information and pictures to media organisations to broadcast or put into prints. Handphones and digital cameras are very handy tools for the coverage of instant news. And there is the great happenings at Youtube with everyone trying out their flair and showing off what they have shot. What the media gurus forget to say is that citizen journalism is journalism of the people. The people choose their agenda and report things they want to report. This is a huge difference from what one reads in the media when the content is chosen by the editor. Now the citizens decide what they want to write, print and shoot and read. My denture almost fell out when I read this statement from ReuterTV's senior producer Jahabar Sadiq who cautioned against the bias in such material. "I 've seen videos that were edited and shaped in such a way that they presented just one point of view...News agencies will still be there to provide a neutral point of view - a view that has integrity and is created by professionals with very good editorial policies.' He said. How much is true in Jahabar's statement? 10% perhaps. All the news we read are edited and shaped in such a way that they present the views of the journalist or that of the media or broadcasters. It is often a one sided view. A neutral view? What a load of bullshit! And integrity, created by professionals with very good editorial policies? Integrity in what? Good policies according to who? The only thing professional is that the people are professional people being paid to do what they are told to do. Only in citizen journalism is there independence of thoughts and ideas reflecting what the citizen sees, hears and reports, of course with his taint of biasness. At least the citizen does not pretend to be neutral and objective.

What it is like with a doubling of population

We need to DOUBLE the following: 1. Roads and public transport system and car parks 2. Housing, either sideways or upwards 3. Schools, polytechnics and universities 4. Hospitals and clinics 5. Recreation, sports stadiums and amusement facilities 6. Places of worship 7. Jobs 8. Shopping centres, markets 9. Land of course 10. Reservoirs 11. Air and breathing space 12. Food 13. And many more things But our land is shrinking because of global warming. When that happens, no more land reclamation and many housing and other landed properties will be under water.

Car Insurance Premium expected to go up

The Insurance association has given warning that car insurance premium would have to go up because of high cost and claims. It reported a loss of more than $13 mil for the first quarter of the year on a revenue of nearly $200 mil for the same period. Assuming labour and other cost works out to be 70% of the revenue, or $140 mil, the claims from car accidents must be $60 mil plus $13 mil or $73 mil. And if the total cost is 50%, or $100 mil, the claim was a staggering $113 mil. These are just ball park figure. What is alarming is that a whole year figure would be 4 times this amount or between $292 mil and $452 mil. Now that is a lot of claims. The question is whether the loss is due to high accident claims or other costs eg labour cost, rental costs or losses due to investments. The amount of claims due to car accidents was expectedly not reported. The motorists who are going to be charged with higher car insurance premium deserved to know the whole picture. If accident claims is really that high, then it is justifiable to throw back the cost to the motorists. However, if the losses were due to higher manpower cost or other losses, then it is unfair to expect the motorists to bear the hike in insurance premium. Would CASE look into this before car insurance premiums are raised?

My reply to Li Ao

Ah Bian was interviewed by Yang Ming over Channel News Asia. And Ah Bian was in his own self, speaking or misspeaking in words that he could not pronounce clearly, and explaining his policies and philosophy of life and politics. Yang Ming was his professional best, articulate, polite and perceptive. He was posing questions at Ah Bian, leading him along but Ah Bian evading all the sensitive issues related to China. The most important feature throughout the interview was Yang Ming's expression. Though he smiled very often, and very cool and polite in his questions and comments, he could not hide his frustration at the man sitting in front of him that he called President. His face was as red as a lobster. He must be wondering why the Taiwanese elected such a man to be their President. There was nothing in Ah Bian that could impress him as one who can lead a nation. Ah Bian was fumbling as he could not articulate his words clearly. It was not even Min Nan dialect. After this interview, my reply to Li Ao is that the Taiwanese are also stupid. How else would a people electe a President like Ah Bian when there are many capable men around. Even Yang Ming is a much better man, anytime, in all aspects. They need to raise their President's salary to attract better talents.

security threat is real

The terrorist threat getting serious. This is a threat that will not go away but getting worst by the day. It is a matter of time when we will cry for our brothers and sisters lying in pools of blood or dying after an attack. And the govt is aware that they cannot fool around with such threats and must take all precautions and preparations necessary to prevent such an attack. Chee Hean came out with a new scheme to train more soldiers to take on this task, to protect our beautiful houses, complexes, infrastructures and HDB flats as well. No amount of men is too many to carry out this task. Uniformed personnel will be first on the line to face the terrorists. Maybe it is time they pay the uniformed personnel in the millions for putting their lives on the line to protect the wealth, security and safety of the people. Some issues and concerns were raised in Parliament with this new change. There were fears of abuses. This is unavoidable. Lets hope that there is no repeat of the airport incident where uniformed personnel abused their power and threaten the people they are supposed to protect. In that incident, an innocuous remark by a mother and a child resulted in their plan family holiday ruined and subjected them to intimidation by uniformed personnel, held up or in a way prevented them from going for their holiday. What the govt needs to do, and the people needs to know, is that the uniformed people are there to protect the people. And the people also must know their rights and when such uniformed personnel abuse their authority, they must be challenged or a channel for official complains to bring them to task, and be punished severely. For it is a very serious situation if we allowed uniformed personnel to think that they can abuse their authority and mess around with the citizens. And knowing the sheeple that we have, they will allow such abuses against them to get by. We need to educate our people of their rights as citizens as well. And also what they should do when uniformed personnel cross their line of duty to intimidate the people. This is also a time when the people and uniformed personnel must work closely together as one against a common enemy.

Getting old or getting wiser

The age issue in employment is receiving more attention in a population that is growing with the baby boomers. This is the group of movers and shakers of the economy for the last 30 years and they refuse to go away. They are here to stay, like it or not. They will occupy all the seats of power and influence, and money of course, until they drop dead. Who says people should be retiring? Is there an issue with people working to their sunset years? Is 62 a reasonable age to retire? It all depends. It depends on the physical and mental health of the worker. It also depends on the nature of the job. In more physically demanding jobs, you cannot afford to risk the lives of workers who are physically challenged to continue what they doing when young. And in many jobs, the dexterity of the fingers and the nimbleness of the minds, as well as the pretty face of a sweet young thing make a world of a difference in getting the job done well. Can a straight jacket law be simply introduced to be applicable to all situations? What the law could look at is a real restructuring of jobs for the oldies instead of kicking the oldies aside. There are many jobs that are suitable for oldies that have been threatened because young boys and girls think that oldies should be confined to old folks homes. On the other hand younger and physically able people could be encouraged to take on more active jobs or jobs that require more mobility. There is no hard and fast rules when physical suitablity is concerned. But one thing of concern is the slow reaction and nearly blind uncles driving taxis. The physical checks must not just be confined to general health and the eyesight. The lost of attentiveness and slow reaction to a fast changing situation can be life threatening. We need job restructuring rather than stringent laws that are cast in stone. But don't send all the uncles and aunties to become table cleaners and dish washers, or road sweepers.

politics is a game for man

This is truly exceptional and extraordinary. The change catalyst in Singapore politics is in the hands of two ancient politicians. One is in the thick of things and instituting changes all the way. Another is in the fringe waiting to re enter the scene to institute the biggest change in Singapore's politics. Make way boys and girls. Age is an advantage in politics. Go back to play marbles and catch spiders.

I am back - JBJ

The ONE that refuses to go away and keeps coming back. He may be 85 in 2011, if his health permits, surely he will run the race. He has given everything he got to run this race. He will make his last stand. And he has everything going for him. There are plenty of issues that he can talk about and people will listen to him. The sympathisers will be with him. His admirers for his determination and sacrifices will be for him. And there will be the permanent opposition votes that will go to him. He is likely to waltz into parliament without any resistance. The boys and girls will be overawed by his presence. And if they dare attack him or ridicule him in any way, the joke will be on them. The only obstacle in his path is not to get himself into any legal battle and be made a bankrupt again before the next election. But the naysayers will try to write him off. Those who believe that it is good to be in the winning camp will also want to write him off. Ultimately it will be a test of whether Singaporeans have a heart to see this grand old man through the last few years of his life. He is a Singaporean that never run away.

We need means testing

There is no better time than now to quickly introduce means testing before things get out of hand. The public service is public service for the people and not a treasure chest for the finders and keepers. It is the public's money and not only that the money must be spent reasonably, the public must also have a say in how and how much it should be spent particularly in the area of Ministerial salary. And this is where means testing must come in. A set of criteria must be adopted to test the means of such an income that the people deems fit for the political appointees. This should be measured against affordability and real income. Real income as compared against equally well off nations and the value of the income vis a vis the basket of goods it can purchased. Next we need to look at affordability not in the sense that the country has a golden goose and it is able to afford as many eggs as the picker wants to. Affordability shall be in the area of what the salary should be able to afford to the office holders. How many houses should the salary afford to buy every year, how many Benzes or BMWs or Bently every year, how many family holidays to choice destinations, how many millions to be put aside as savings. The political appointees must be able to afford a lifestyle fit for them in a prosperous country. The means testing must make sure that they can afford all these comforts to be meaningful and of course to attract more of such talented people befitting of such lifestyle to join the fray. The govt should immediately start to work out a set of means testing for such high offices.

The perfect example of a stupid Singaporean

The perfect example of a stupid Singaporean I chance to read this little article about the TV serial Survivor and a guy called Yau-Man Chan. The way he spelt his name, which is actually Chan Yau Man, tells you how stupid he is without needing any further explanation. What he did in the TV serial was the offering to someone a Ford truck for a verbal deal. Unfortunately the world is not made up of people as innocent and naive as he is. And the other guy, a Andria Herd, negated on the deal and he lost the game as well as the truck. Andria's reason is that 'I never totally gave my word. That's how people play the game.' And Andria was proud to say it in front of millions of people on TV, that there is nothing wrong with that. Very likely the world agrees with him except for the few supporter of the sorry loser, Yau Man Chan. And the stupid Yau Man Chan accepted that. Why couldn't he negate on his words and not to give up his truck since the other party did not fulfill his obligation? And he had to apologetically said that Andria was not evil, just confused, while he himself was dubed. The character traits of this Yau Man Chan is very typically Singaporeans. They went around the world, globetrotting, got into deals only to be cheated as the other party has no intention to honour the deal. And the Singaporean would pathetically and compliantly walk away without his pants. Just a note, Yau Man Chan is not a Singaporean but a Malaysian Chinese living in foreign land and has to compromise on his rights, dignity and even the way he writes his name. Chinese Singaporeans in Singapore still have some dignity and respect to stand up for their rights inside the island. But once out of it, they will have to be another decent, innocent, complaint, and graceful victim of people who will take advantage of them as they only have themselves to blame for being in the jungle and they the helpless sheep. This is the new image of an overseas Chinese. In the past the model image of the Chinese was a super loyal and obedient cook whose only talent is cooking and washing the laundry.