Is it because of the liberalization, or is it because of the craze for artistic expression, this little uptight nanny state seems to be preoccupied with bonkings lately. The latest gossips, not gossips, newsworthy news that many Singaporeans are demanding to know or want to know, is who is bonking who. And it sells papers too I think, like the great tabloids or evening news.
The only thing good coming out this episode is for a few celebrities in high places to appear as role models in bonking as a past time. Then the dragon year will definitely become a bountiful year for making babies, legitimate or illegimate. Who cares as long as we have more population growth, more NS men, more workers to push up the GDP and more bonuses?
I think this is the real problem why this nanny state is not producing the babies that are needed. Not enough bonkings or bonking being seen as something unhealthy, undesirable, unsavory or unsophisticated. There is a need to put a new spin into bonking to make it attractive, virility, libido, manhood, ego, conquest…what else. If only the prudes are aware that bonking is quite common in today’s nanny state except not in the news. A few more reports would probably kill the curiosity on bonkings.
I heard of a complaint that someone bonked a guy. And the company nanny was serious enough to ask him for an explanation. Of course he denied. And the self confessed victim was furious. The complainee almost wanted to give the retard two black eyes. But knowing that he was sick, and with all the advices from all who knew this sicko, telling him that it was not worth it, he restrained himself from bonking the sicko to his satisfaction. Maybe the sicko was really asking to be bonked.
Ok, don’t get the wrong idea. Bonk in Hokien is something very innocuous, ie touch. I bonk you is like saying I touch you. And this cracko complained that the other guy bonked him all because the guy denied him the chance of going mad with another lady in the office. The sicko wanted to bonk her in his mentally retard ways of course. And for being unable to bonk the lady, he countered by taking it out on the innocent guy, by accusing him of bonking him.
There are many weird people around that should be locked up in IMH. But really, be careful about bonking in paradise. No bonking allowed. They only play with fiddles and read poems at the underground station. By the way, beating the citizens, even ladies, manhandling them, give them a few body blows, are perfectly fine. And just a friendly advice, please don’t ask a lady if it is alright to bonk her.
2/02/2012
Cheating the ignorants
I have just called my phone service provider to cancel a service that I have not subscribed for, something like GPRS, which I was charged $5.57. I am not sure if I could have been paying for it in my previous bills. It seems that the service came together with an Android mobile phone. Many uncles and aunties or children have bought phones with many high tech stuff embedded that they did not know and may not even use or did not know that they will be charged for it.
I have cancelled several of such services from the service providers before when I encountered them. For many users of mobile phones, what they need is a phone and nothing else. Some may need the sms while others may need more. The service providers must have the decency to offer the additional facilities to the users on a demand basis and not simply lump them as a package and expecting the ignorant users to pay for them.
I am wondering how many uncles and aunties are paying for such service that they did not want or need, or are paying for their children’s bills without knowing why or what the hell they are paying for. If only they know how to read their bills and demand that nonsense should be taken out.
CASE must step in to protect innocent and ignorant customers from such abuses by service providers. It is a lot of unethical profits charged to the ignorant masses if everyone has to pay a few dollars monthly for things that they don’t need. Some paying without even knowing. The literate will be spared but the poor illiterate will be made victims as they would not be able to protect themselves. This is as good as bullying the poor masses.
The other unethical corporate practice is making cold calls to unwary customers and the latter ended up paying for the phone time used and phone bills. Phone calls are not free and such practices must be stopped. It is not that innocent, and not free. If companies are going to continue with such nuisance calls, they must be made to pay for the phone bills of customers that they called, the recipients must not bear the cost of nuisance calls and wasting their time as well.
Unethical practices by corporate entities must be stopped.
I have cancelled several of such services from the service providers before when I encountered them. For many users of mobile phones, what they need is a phone and nothing else. Some may need the sms while others may need more. The service providers must have the decency to offer the additional facilities to the users on a demand basis and not simply lump them as a package and expecting the ignorant users to pay for them.
I am wondering how many uncles and aunties are paying for such service that they did not want or need, or are paying for their children’s bills without knowing why or what the hell they are paying for. If only they know how to read their bills and demand that nonsense should be taken out.
CASE must step in to protect innocent and ignorant customers from such abuses by service providers. It is a lot of unethical profits charged to the ignorant masses if everyone has to pay a few dollars monthly for things that they don’t need. Some paying without even knowing. The literate will be spared but the poor illiterate will be made victims as they would not be able to protect themselves. This is as good as bullying the poor masses.
The other unethical corporate practice is making cold calls to unwary customers and the latter ended up paying for the phone time used and phone bills. Phone calls are not free and such practices must be stopped. It is not that innocent, and not free. If companies are going to continue with such nuisance calls, they must be made to pay for the phone bills of customers that they called, the recipients must not bear the cost of nuisance calls and wasting their time as well.
Unethical practices by corporate entities must be stopped.
Why the Whip?
Why was the Whip not lifted during the debate on Ministerial Salary? If the PAP believes so strongly in its philosophy and policy on high pay for public service, should not all the MPs and ministers also believe in the same ideology? Or was the rumour of a split on this issue true, that some MPs and ministers were not agreeable with the policy of high pay?
How serious was the divide? Could the against faction be more than the for faction? If so, then the majority in the party is being overruled by the minority. But this is highly unlikely given the passion they exhibited in supporting this policy. Or could it be the MPs versus the ministers as the MPs are not the real beneficiary of the policy?
Hypothetically, if the Whip is lifted and more MPs and ministers were to speak against it, then it can become embarrassing. Or it could be the MPs speaking and voting against the ministers.
When that happens, the hypocrisies will be difficult to bear. It will clearly show the self interest of those in favour of high pay defending their high pay. Another form of hypocrisy that could be exposed will be MPs speaking against it and voting for it. And if that happens, it will be very awkward for PAP MPs to lash out at other political parties for hypocrisy.
Now that the debate and voting are over, no one will be wiser or have the good fortune to know what it could have been. It is just a speculative thought though. Who knows, all the MPs and ministers could come out with their guns firing in support of the recommendation. Then again, given the need to impose the Whip, perhaps this is an unlikely scenario.
Another hypothetical and disastrous ending, if the Whip was not imposed, would see the recommendation defeated by PAP MPs voting against it. That will be a real shocker.
The Whip is very effective in such a vital policy debate, and with an absolute majority, the phrase, ‘let’s vote for it’ is really an insult on the daft Sinkies. But this is democracy at its best, with a little aid from the Whip.
The other big question is whether the high salary bill is an issue of national interest or a matter of conscience. The advocates claimed that it is national interest with the red herring that it is all about the greedy politicians in the future, nothing to do with the present bunch. Well, how many would take this bait? If it is an issue of conscience, then it is not proper to impose the Whip as it will taint every MP and Minister in the same smear of colour.
Is this issue water under the bridge?
How serious was the divide? Could the against faction be more than the for faction? If so, then the majority in the party is being overruled by the minority. But this is highly unlikely given the passion they exhibited in supporting this policy. Or could it be the MPs versus the ministers as the MPs are not the real beneficiary of the policy?
Hypothetically, if the Whip is lifted and more MPs and ministers were to speak against it, then it can become embarrassing. Or it could be the MPs speaking and voting against the ministers.
When that happens, the hypocrisies will be difficult to bear. It will clearly show the self interest of those in favour of high pay defending their high pay. Another form of hypocrisy that could be exposed will be MPs speaking against it and voting for it. And if that happens, it will be very awkward for PAP MPs to lash out at other political parties for hypocrisy.
Now that the debate and voting are over, no one will be wiser or have the good fortune to know what it could have been. It is just a speculative thought though. Who knows, all the MPs and ministers could come out with their guns firing in support of the recommendation. Then again, given the need to impose the Whip, perhaps this is an unlikely scenario.
Another hypothetical and disastrous ending, if the Whip was not imposed, would see the recommendation defeated by PAP MPs voting against it. That will be a real shocker.
The Whip is very effective in such a vital policy debate, and with an absolute majority, the phrase, ‘let’s vote for it’ is really an insult on the daft Sinkies. But this is democracy at its best, with a little aid from the Whip.
The other big question is whether the high salary bill is an issue of national interest or a matter of conscience. The advocates claimed that it is national interest with the red herring that it is all about the greedy politicians in the future, nothing to do with the present bunch. Well, how many would take this bait? If it is an issue of conscience, then it is not proper to impose the Whip as it will taint every MP and Minister in the same smear of colour.
Is this issue water under the bridge?
Singapore needs a weather satellite
Several years ago when the heat was on haze coming from Indonesia, they recommended that they would need a satellite to keep track of all the fires in the huge archipelago. This sounded very reasonable given the size of the area to cover and the difficulty in locating the fire. It is normal for hundreds of fire to be burning without anyone knowing. With the satellite, they can pick them out on the computer screen easily, send a signal to Singapore or Malaysia and the two can parachute their fire fighters over the affected areas in no time.
We have an equally gigantic problem in flooding. Some ridiculed it by calling it ponding. But it is a very serious problem that necessitates ploughing millions or billions into it. A weather satellite seems to be useful to locate where the floodings are. If we have such a satellite, the flood prone areas or flood areas can be easily located. And when there is flooding, the affected people can be quickly informed and flood correcting measures be taken.
Such a satellite can also be used for many other purposes like tracking immigrants and population increases for the govt to build more supporting facilities for them. If we have such a satellite earlier, we would not have a housing shortage problem, we would not have hospital shortage problem, and we may not even have road congestion problem. It is still not too late to acquire a satellite to solve our problems. It is a good early warning indicator. It would tell us where the problem is going to come from.
We are a big country and we really need something in the sky, like the satellite to help us solve our big problems. Talking about the sky, maybe we should seriously consider acquiring an Air Force One for the Prime Minister to travel from the Istana to Parliament House, to Ang Mo Kio or Lim Chu Kang or whichever part of the island, by passing the traffic jams and ERPs. The PM could then be at any part of the island quickly and this will increase his productivity.
While we are talking about productivity, I remember the stylish and fanciful swimming suits wore by Olympic swimmers to shave a few mini seconds from their timing to beat the world records. The specialized suits are quite frictionless and will allow them to slice through the water at ease. I think the same principle can be applied to the flooding problem. The flood water is flowing too slowly through our drains and canals. If we can apply a frictionless material over them like the swimmer’s suits, the water will move faster and minimize flooding. They will get to the Marina Barrage at double quick time. But someone must open the flood gate to let the water out or it would make a flip turn and run back to where it came from just as fast.
If the walls of our canals can be smoothened, they can also be used by the skateboard enthusiasts to train and perfect their skateboarding skills when the water is low. No need to spend money on special skateboarding parks and equipments. Out smoothened canals will just be as good and saving on precious space too. Bukit Timah and Rochor Canal can be turned into tourist attractions like Shinjuku.
They say, win win solution man. So many wins. I am so excited this morning with my creative juices flowing unceasingly.
We have an equally gigantic problem in flooding. Some ridiculed it by calling it ponding. But it is a very serious problem that necessitates ploughing millions or billions into it. A weather satellite seems to be useful to locate where the floodings are. If we have such a satellite, the flood prone areas or flood areas can be easily located. And when there is flooding, the affected people can be quickly informed and flood correcting measures be taken.
Such a satellite can also be used for many other purposes like tracking immigrants and population increases for the govt to build more supporting facilities for them. If we have such a satellite earlier, we would not have a housing shortage problem, we would not have hospital shortage problem, and we may not even have road congestion problem. It is still not too late to acquire a satellite to solve our problems. It is a good early warning indicator. It would tell us where the problem is going to come from.
We are a big country and we really need something in the sky, like the satellite to help us solve our big problems. Talking about the sky, maybe we should seriously consider acquiring an Air Force One for the Prime Minister to travel from the Istana to Parliament House, to Ang Mo Kio or Lim Chu Kang or whichever part of the island, by passing the traffic jams and ERPs. The PM could then be at any part of the island quickly and this will increase his productivity.
While we are talking about productivity, I remember the stylish and fanciful swimming suits wore by Olympic swimmers to shave a few mini seconds from their timing to beat the world records. The specialized suits are quite frictionless and will allow them to slice through the water at ease. I think the same principle can be applied to the flooding problem. The flood water is flowing too slowly through our drains and canals. If we can apply a frictionless material over them like the swimmer’s suits, the water will move faster and minimize flooding. They will get to the Marina Barrage at double quick time. But someone must open the flood gate to let the water out or it would make a flip turn and run back to where it came from just as fast.
If the walls of our canals can be smoothened, they can also be used by the skateboard enthusiasts to train and perfect their skateboarding skills when the water is low. No need to spend money on special skateboarding parks and equipments. Out smoothened canals will just be as good and saving on precious space too. Bukit Timah and Rochor Canal can be turned into tourist attractions like Shinjuku.
They say, win win solution man. So many wins. I am so excited this morning with my creative juices flowing unceasingly.
2/01/2012
The Water Margin classic revisited
The early phase of the Water Margin story told of the marginalized and convicted officials who were fixed up by corrupt powers of the day. And they had no where to go, could not emigrate, except to escape to Liang Shan.
The first chief of the Liang Shan rebels was Wang Lun, a small minded selfish man of average intellect. As more and more able and more talented men flocked to Liang Shan, he felt threatened and tried to send them off. He wanted to remain the top dog for as long as he could.
To his disappointment, as more people and officials were driven away by corrupt court officials, he could not keep them away no matter how he tried. Eventually his reluctance and selfish desire to protect his own position led to his own demise. He was killed by Lin Chong, a powerful ex govt military officer.
Whether in govt or in the rebel camp, once the top dog has outlived his usefulness, and when more able and talented people appeared, they must make way or be removed one way or another. Resistance is futile. They will be bungled out to the wilderness.
The first chief of the Liang Shan rebels was Wang Lun, a small minded selfish man of average intellect. As more and more able and more talented men flocked to Liang Shan, he felt threatened and tried to send them off. He wanted to remain the top dog for as long as he could.
To his disappointment, as more people and officials were driven away by corrupt court officials, he could not keep them away no matter how he tried. Eventually his reluctance and selfish desire to protect his own position led to his own demise. He was killed by Lin Chong, a powerful ex govt military officer.
Whether in govt or in the rebel camp, once the top dog has outlived his usefulness, and when more able and talented people appeared, they must make way or be removed one way or another. Resistance is futile. They will be bungled out to the wilderness.
The deception of pay hike
How many of you really become richer when there is a pay hike? I am referring to the normal average Singaporeans, not those whose pay hikes are in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Many will feel richer for a moment but whether they are richer or poorer will depend on the subsequent events that follow the pay hike. Are there more hikes in fares, charges, rentals and services? If they do, then the pay hike could all be absorbed by the subsequent hikes of goods and services, or in short, inflation, unless of course the hike is much more than real inflation. Many could be poorer after the pay hike when the higher cost of living eats up more than their hikes.
There is also the reverse, when no pay hike can make one richer. If the cost of living can be lowered like the cost of goods and services, the same dollar can buy more, and thus makes one richer.
Many people have been robbed of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars by the runaway property prices. Buy a property at $300k instead of $500k, or $600k instead of $1m. The amount of instant losses is huge beyond comprehension and would wipe away years of savings and stinging.
Don’t be too happy with your pay hike.
In the early 70s, a $2k income could buy a 5 rm flat, a car and bring up a family quite comfortably.
There is also the reverse, when no pay hike can make one richer. If the cost of living can be lowered like the cost of goods and services, the same dollar can buy more, and thus makes one richer.
Many people have been robbed of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars by the runaway property prices. Buy a property at $300k instead of $500k, or $600k instead of $1m. The amount of instant losses is huge beyond comprehension and would wipe away years of savings and stinging.
Don’t be too happy with your pay hike.
In the early 70s, a $2k income could buy a 5 rm flat, a car and bring up a family quite comfortably.
Yesterday’s mantra, today’s high falutin
How things can change overnight. Many great arguments, uncontested and unchallenged, were elevated to become the daily mantras of Sinkies. Overnight, after a heavy thunderstorm, the dull Sinkie minds seem to have brightened up a little after the flood water subsided. Now they are calling all the mantras high falutins. They don’t believe in any of them anymore.
The first to fall is the high salary for super talent. This brought along the demise of high salary to prevent corruption mantra. No body really believes in it anymore. This is amazing. As they said, real gold is not afraid of fire. But gold plating is a different thing altogether. How many high mantras are going the high falutin way?
Maybe the Sinkies are going crazy and the old mantras are still valid but the daft Sinkies could not appreciate how valuable they were.
The first to fall is the high salary for super talent. This brought along the demise of high salary to prevent corruption mantra. No body really believes in it anymore. This is amazing. As they said, real gold is not afraid of fire. But gold plating is a different thing altogether. How many high mantras are going the high falutin way?
Maybe the Sinkies are going crazy and the old mantras are still valid but the daft Sinkies could not appreciate how valuable they were.
1/31/2012
Can PAP survive 2016?
This is an interesting question that many observers are wondering. In the last election there were signs that the ground had shifted. The support for PAP was weakening and all it needed was for the opposition to put up a stronger slate of candidates to make some inroad into Parliament. And we have seen a GRC fell. Actually another one or two could have gone to the opposition.
There was no lack of good candidates from the opposition camp to win a couple more GRCs. Goh Meng Seng was right in going at individual ministers that were weak and losing ground support with their bad policies. The fault was the dilution of opposition candidates, basically spread too thin. If they have adopted the same strategy like the WP, the NSP could have got Tampines hands down.
What would be the fortune of the political parties in 2016? The PAP will have a very tough time comes 2016. There is really nothing left to stand in favour of the party. After the ministerial salary debate in Parliament, all the political credits have vanished into thin air. The super talent and super salary myths have been shattered to pieces. Not many thinking people will find the super talents anything that super or unusual. The few good ministers could have held their grounds if not of flawed policies or the wrong direction that the country is being led to. And to keep to party line and direction, they could only go along but undermining their own credibility as super talents.
The policy of throwing money at problems is getting hilarious and comical. Money is not an issue. It is OPM. Just throw money at any problem. The more money is thrown the better the impression that great effort and intelligence are at work, and the problem will be solved.
The reverse is to make the people pay as much as they can afford, as long as there is money left in their pockets. Both do not need any intelligence to go with. Millions and billions have been blown away.
How many still believe that the PAP candidates in Parliament are the best people available to lead this country? Many of the opposition candidates in the last elections were many times better and several were even of ministerial material. It is regrettable that they are not in Parliament. It is equally regrettable that a few of the not deserving are now in Parliament.
Some corners of the public are lamenting that there are still not enough good candidates. Actually they were several very good candidates from the opposition in the last GE, definitely better than those from the PAP. And it is likely that more will be stepping forward in 2016. If each of the opposition party could attract enough good candidates to wrestle one GRC from the PAP and with the WP doing a little better, there is a good possibility of another 4 or 5 GRCs going to the opposition. It will deplete further the already dearth of real super talents in the ruling party.
The invincible wall of super talents has fallen. There were really no super talents to talk of. And with so many mediocre talents in the GRCs, if the opposition parties could concentrate their fire power with good candidates in their GRC teams, the balance can easily be tipped. The Tony and Hazel Poa, Benjamin Pwee, Vincent, Jee Say, Nicole, just to name a few, were equals to the PAP’s best and should rightfully be in Parliament. The electorate has seen them and is likely to place their bets on them and other equally good candidates that will show up in 2016.
What else is there in PAP to hold against a new slate of able and good candidates from the opposition when practically every minister is now looking so vulnerable? As for the rest of the MPs…well….
Can the PAP survive 2016?
There was no lack of good candidates from the opposition camp to win a couple more GRCs. Goh Meng Seng was right in going at individual ministers that were weak and losing ground support with their bad policies. The fault was the dilution of opposition candidates, basically spread too thin. If they have adopted the same strategy like the WP, the NSP could have got Tampines hands down.
What would be the fortune of the political parties in 2016? The PAP will have a very tough time comes 2016. There is really nothing left to stand in favour of the party. After the ministerial salary debate in Parliament, all the political credits have vanished into thin air. The super talent and super salary myths have been shattered to pieces. Not many thinking people will find the super talents anything that super or unusual. The few good ministers could have held their grounds if not of flawed policies or the wrong direction that the country is being led to. And to keep to party line and direction, they could only go along but undermining their own credibility as super talents.
The policy of throwing money at problems is getting hilarious and comical. Money is not an issue. It is OPM. Just throw money at any problem. The more money is thrown the better the impression that great effort and intelligence are at work, and the problem will be solved.
The reverse is to make the people pay as much as they can afford, as long as there is money left in their pockets. Both do not need any intelligence to go with. Millions and billions have been blown away.
How many still believe that the PAP candidates in Parliament are the best people available to lead this country? Many of the opposition candidates in the last elections were many times better and several were even of ministerial material. It is regrettable that they are not in Parliament. It is equally regrettable that a few of the not deserving are now in Parliament.
Some corners of the public are lamenting that there are still not enough good candidates. Actually they were several very good candidates from the opposition in the last GE, definitely better than those from the PAP. And it is likely that more will be stepping forward in 2016. If each of the opposition party could attract enough good candidates to wrestle one GRC from the PAP and with the WP doing a little better, there is a good possibility of another 4 or 5 GRCs going to the opposition. It will deplete further the already dearth of real super talents in the ruling party.
The invincible wall of super talents has fallen. There were really no super talents to talk of. And with so many mediocre talents in the GRCs, if the opposition parties could concentrate their fire power with good candidates in their GRC teams, the balance can easily be tipped. The Tony and Hazel Poa, Benjamin Pwee, Vincent, Jee Say, Nicole, just to name a few, were equals to the PAP’s best and should rightfully be in Parliament. The electorate has seen them and is likely to place their bets on them and other equally good candidates that will show up in 2016.
What else is there in PAP to hold against a new slate of able and good candidates from the opposition when practically every minister is now looking so vulnerable? As for the rest of the MPs…well….
Can the PAP survive 2016?
$750m to solve ponding problem
The govt took less than a month to decide on spending $750m to solve a little ponding problem in Orchard Road. The recommendations by the committee of experts were revealed only a few weeks back in the main media. Looking from a positive angle, it is decisiveness, a govt on the ball and is trying to tackle the problem as fast as it could. I still remember that it needed one whole year of studies to decide to give those on public assistance $50 extra a month. I am not privy to how long the committee took to come out with the recommendations but the decision was made super fast and super serious.
I don’t know how many and how big were the ponds. If there were 10 ponds, it means each pond will cost $75m to remove. And looking at the works to be done, many of the facilities were meant to be for monitoring and data collecting purposes and not really to solve the flooding problem. I think the $124m map is one of them, plus all the CCTVs and early warning system. By the time they have the map ready and all the new data, another big sum of money will be needed to implement more new measures from the new findings.
Well, money can solve all problems. True or not? Or money down the drain into the ponds? What is $750m? May not be effective as the sum is too small.
I don’t know how many and how big were the ponds. If there were 10 ponds, it means each pond will cost $75m to remove. And looking at the works to be done, many of the facilities were meant to be for monitoring and data collecting purposes and not really to solve the flooding problem. I think the $124m map is one of them, plus all the CCTVs and early warning system. By the time they have the map ready and all the new data, another big sum of money will be needed to implement more new measures from the new findings.
Well, money can solve all problems. True or not? Or money down the drain into the ponds? What is $750m? May not be effective as the sum is too small.
Incompetence or negligence?
A contributor to the ST forum today, Woon Toon Tuan, wrote an article titled, ‘Why property prices will remain high’ and quoted some amazing numbers which he said were from official sources.
He stated that from 1995-2010, the population of citizens and PRs increased by 758,000 while 128,896 private homes were built. The 758,000 when translated into homes needed with a 3.5 person per household were 216,628 homes. Between the two, there was a shortfall of 87,732 homes needed. To date, there are 77,089 units of incompleted homes in the pipeline and these would still be insufficient and will thus not quench the demand for housing. Prices will thus remain firm.
I am not sure if public housing would affect his numbers as he mentioned that the 128,896 were private homes. Then he added that in year 2010, the population increased by another 107,000 foreigners. This would translate to another 30,000 units of home for them.
It is really very funny that if these are official data, how could they be missed and some jokers happily cut down on the building of public housing? Actually it is not funny at all when so many people were adversely affected and their savings kenna wiped out because of high demand and low supply of housing. Home buyers could have suffered a few hundred thousand dollars extra in the prices they paid because of this boo boo. Some would have to push back their buying decision only to end up seeing the prices rocketing to the sky. And they are stucked with no housing till today. Those that have to pay the exceptionally high prices would have no recourse to the monetary loss they have incurred because of this fiasco.
Nobody is responsible for the shit they have ended up in. Ya, they can blame it on market forces.
He stated that from 1995-2010, the population of citizens and PRs increased by 758,000 while 128,896 private homes were built. The 758,000 when translated into homes needed with a 3.5 person per household were 216,628 homes. Between the two, there was a shortfall of 87,732 homes needed. To date, there are 77,089 units of incompleted homes in the pipeline and these would still be insufficient and will thus not quench the demand for housing. Prices will thus remain firm.
I am not sure if public housing would affect his numbers as he mentioned that the 128,896 were private homes. Then he added that in year 2010, the population increased by another 107,000 foreigners. This would translate to another 30,000 units of home for them.
It is really very funny that if these are official data, how could they be missed and some jokers happily cut down on the building of public housing? Actually it is not funny at all when so many people were adversely affected and their savings kenna wiped out because of high demand and low supply of housing. Home buyers could have suffered a few hundred thousand dollars extra in the prices they paid because of this boo boo. Some would have to push back their buying decision only to end up seeing the prices rocketing to the sky. And they are stucked with no housing till today. Those that have to pay the exceptionally high prices would have no recourse to the monetary loss they have incurred because of this fiasco.
Nobody is responsible for the shit they have ended up in. Ya, they can blame it on market forces.
1/30/2012
Obama - A contented man
In his latest State of the Union Address, Obama Barack came across as a happy, balanced and contented man. In his Presidential speech it was all about nation and people, nothing about self. He was not there to defend his pay or asking for more pay. The only time he did mention about his pay was to say that he was very satisfied with his meagre official pay and was more than willing to pay more taxes on top of what he was paying under the current tax laws.
Some may squirm and privately mumble to themselves that Obama could be paid more under the table. But no one has any evidence to say so. Given the American liberal and open system, any such wrongdoings would not hide pass muster. It is not so easy to be corrupt or be paid under the table without being discovered as the President of the USA. This is unlike Asian systems of opagueness, non transparency and non disclosure when many things could be hidden or undisclosed and plenty can be hidden under the sun.
The closest Asian system that is as transparent as the American, and clean, must be our very own system. The slight difference is that Obama is a happy and contented politician who is happy with his lesser pay than our politicians who are still feeling quite sore of the hair cut. A contented man, some say silly man, is a wise man. Of course this is very subjective and many in paradise will be laughing themselves silly at Obama for such a big job and responsibility and afraid to fight for more pay. He could simply use our model to justify his $600k pay upwards many times.
Whether he is wise or silly is a matter of opinion, a judgement call really.
Some may squirm and privately mumble to themselves that Obama could be paid more under the table. But no one has any evidence to say so. Given the American liberal and open system, any such wrongdoings would not hide pass muster. It is not so easy to be corrupt or be paid under the table without being discovered as the President of the USA. This is unlike Asian systems of opagueness, non transparency and non disclosure when many things could be hidden or undisclosed and plenty can be hidden under the sun.
The closest Asian system that is as transparent as the American, and clean, must be our very own system. The slight difference is that Obama is a happy and contented politician who is happy with his lesser pay than our politicians who are still feeling quite sore of the hair cut. A contented man, some say silly man, is a wise man. Of course this is very subjective and many in paradise will be laughing themselves silly at Obama for such a big job and responsibility and afraid to fight for more pay. He could simply use our model to justify his $600k pay upwards many times.
Whether he is wise or silly is a matter of opinion, a judgement call really.
Close down our Medical College
I read that it will cost a student about $600k to study Medicine in Australia or more in the US or UK. This is a princely sum of money to acquire a skill to earn a living. I can presume that the cost of training a doctor locally is just as much, though it may cost less to a student after govt subsidies. The full cost could be as much as a million to produce a locally trained doctor to practice as a GP. For the specialists, the cost will be much more.
In my view this is just not cost effective. When we can get fully trained doctors overseas, including specialists, without paying a cent for their training, why do we need to spend so much of our resources on training doctors locally? All the infrastructure, the manpower, resources, etc can be put to better use elsewhere. In a way, we can outsource our medical training overseas by recruiting foreign talents. And we can pay them cheaper than our locals with their unjustly high expectations.
Boon Wan is talking about cutting cost in the medical profession by increasing productivity. I think he should consider this option. The cost will definitely come down, without the costly investment and with cheaper doctors readily available.
In the name of efficiency, cost effectiveness, we can put this kind of thinking further by closing all our universities and recruit foreign talents and graduates to work in the professions and industries as well. Definitely cheaper, hungrier, and more dynamic and with cost advantage, will make our economy more competitive and vibrant.
As for the Singaporeans, they are quite expensive to train locally. If they can afford it, they can join the army of locals in their march to foreign universities which are deemed to be more valuable and better, and come back as foreign talents. They can foot their own training without the state having to fund the local universities and to provide subsidies on their tuition fees.
The net effect is that we will have cheaper doctors who are better trained by overseas universities to serve our people. It is a win win situation.
In my view this is just not cost effective. When we can get fully trained doctors overseas, including specialists, without paying a cent for their training, why do we need to spend so much of our resources on training doctors locally? All the infrastructure, the manpower, resources, etc can be put to better use elsewhere. In a way, we can outsource our medical training overseas by recruiting foreign talents. And we can pay them cheaper than our locals with their unjustly high expectations.
Boon Wan is talking about cutting cost in the medical profession by increasing productivity. I think he should consider this option. The cost will definitely come down, without the costly investment and with cheaper doctors readily available.
In the name of efficiency, cost effectiveness, we can put this kind of thinking further by closing all our universities and recruit foreign talents and graduates to work in the professions and industries as well. Definitely cheaper, hungrier, and more dynamic and with cost advantage, will make our economy more competitive and vibrant.
As for the Singaporeans, they are quite expensive to train locally. If they can afford it, they can join the army of locals in their march to foreign universities which are deemed to be more valuable and better, and come back as foreign talents. They can foot their own training without the state having to fund the local universities and to provide subsidies on their tuition fees.
The net effect is that we will have cheaper doctors who are better trained by overseas universities to serve our people. It is a win win situation.
A jaw dropping act
The big salary cut for ministers and politicians is a jaw dropping act of sort. It is a very significant admission that the salary paid to politicians was way way excessive in all counts and that finally it came to the open, and no one in his right mind would dare to defend it. It is also a confirmation that it was wrong in the private thoughts of many people, maybe even among the recipients of the huge salaries, but all just buat bodoh and makes hay while the sun shines.
And now that the genie is out of the bottle, it is pointless and helpless to put it back. The ugliness of the high pay cannot face the light of moral justice, not even political correctness. It is just indefensible. It has to be dumped into the darkness and be forgotten.
The troublesome part is that, how could something that is so wrong be upheld and perpetuated for so long as something that is right? It can only happen in a country with unthinking people or absolute power.
So what is the new mantra? Greed is good, greed is normal, greed is the way to go, unstoppable. It has to be that way if we are to progress. Feed the greed and the greedy will be more motivated and will excel in what they are doing.
Actually one can be damn greedy without being productive at all. And one can spend all his energy trying to grab the money by all kinds of schemes instead of working for it.
I wrote the above before the Parliamentary debate. And I was completely wrong. There were still people staunchly believing in it and defending it with tooth and nail. We know who they are now. We also know who kept quiet throughout the debate, either they were against it or too embarrass to defend it, or wanting to enjoy it without being caught defending it.
The biggest sin in this issue is that the people who are benefitting from it are defending and justifying it. And the people who are against it have no avenue to fight it except for 6 opposition members. And if my poll is anything to go by, the majority of the people are against it.
Can the ministers walk around with heads held high, that the people approved their high salary? Did they ask the people about it. Or there is no need to ask at all? And some were very angry at those who spoke against it. They have decided how much they want to pay themselves and they will vote for it in a Parliament where they have absolute majority, with the Whip in force. They will have their way, all 81 of them, not the majority of the people who did not agree with them.
This is democracy at its peak. The rule of the majority in Parliament, by the people, of the people, and for the people. Maybe this definition of democracy needs a little tweaking.
And now that the genie is out of the bottle, it is pointless and helpless to put it back. The ugliness of the high pay cannot face the light of moral justice, not even political correctness. It is just indefensible. It has to be dumped into the darkness and be forgotten.
The troublesome part is that, how could something that is so wrong be upheld and perpetuated for so long as something that is right? It can only happen in a country with unthinking people or absolute power.
So what is the new mantra? Greed is good, greed is normal, greed is the way to go, unstoppable. It has to be that way if we are to progress. Feed the greed and the greedy will be more motivated and will excel in what they are doing.
Actually one can be damn greedy without being productive at all. And one can spend all his energy trying to grab the money by all kinds of schemes instead of working for it.
I wrote the above before the Parliamentary debate. And I was completely wrong. There were still people staunchly believing in it and defending it with tooth and nail. We know who they are now. We also know who kept quiet throughout the debate, either they were against it or too embarrass to defend it, or wanting to enjoy it without being caught defending it.
The biggest sin in this issue is that the people who are benefitting from it are defending and justifying it. And the people who are against it have no avenue to fight it except for 6 opposition members. And if my poll is anything to go by, the majority of the people are against it.
Can the ministers walk around with heads held high, that the people approved their high salary? Did they ask the people about it. Or there is no need to ask at all? And some were very angry at those who spoke against it. They have decided how much they want to pay themselves and they will vote for it in a Parliament where they have absolute majority, with the Whip in force. They will have their way, all 81 of them, not the majority of the people who did not agree with them.
This is democracy at its peak. The rule of the majority in Parliament, by the people, of the people, and for the people. Maybe this definition of democracy needs a little tweaking.
1/29/2012
Sinners not allowed in paradise
The gate of paradise is heavily guarded by no nonsense and morally upright prudes. No sinners are allowed to pass through that gate with no exceptions. The moral high ground is zealously protected. Everyone walking around in paradise has a halo above his head, a sign of being above temptations.
Paradise is only for the holiest of the holy. And they wear white, laundered many times a day to make sure their attires are really spotless. When dirty, just launder again and again. Incidentally laundering is good business in paradise. Many citizens need laundering services to stay clean and white.
Clinton and his Lewinsky friend will be a no no in paradise. Sinners, they will scream. Obama, getting richer and richer despite his paltry salary, is also a suspect. He must be a man of low repute, dipping his fingers in the cookie jar. Money must have come from less clean sources and no amount of laundering would make it clean. So are the leaders of the world, all suspects of recipients of unclean money. No wonder they are seen as leaders with low dignities. The angels have been instructed to keep these sinners out. And the citizens of paradise are happily playing with their fiddlers.
Be clean, so said the holy of the holiest, and the equally clean citizens roared with approval. And they walk around carry stones to throw at the unclean.
Jesus frowned. ‘Let the one who has not sinned be the first to cast his stone.’ And they cast their stones at the sinners. The citizens and the holies of paradise are clean and have not sinned.
Amen.
Paradise is only for the holiest of the holy. And they wear white, laundered many times a day to make sure their attires are really spotless. When dirty, just launder again and again. Incidentally laundering is good business in paradise. Many citizens need laundering services to stay clean and white.
Clinton and his Lewinsky friend will be a no no in paradise. Sinners, they will scream. Obama, getting richer and richer despite his paltry salary, is also a suspect. He must be a man of low repute, dipping his fingers in the cookie jar. Money must have come from less clean sources and no amount of laundering would make it clean. So are the leaders of the world, all suspects of recipients of unclean money. No wonder they are seen as leaders with low dignities. The angels have been instructed to keep these sinners out. And the citizens of paradise are happily playing with their fiddlers.
Be clean, so said the holy of the holiest, and the equally clean citizens roared with approval. And they walk around carry stones to throw at the unclean.
Jesus frowned. ‘Let the one who has not sinned be the first to cast his stone.’ And they cast their stones at the sinners. The citizens and the holies of paradise are clean and have not sinned.
Amen.
The primacy of state or the people?
The state and its people are two sides of a palm. The first impression is that what is good for the state must be good for the people and vice versa. Can it be that what is good for state is not good for people and vice versa as well? There is this disquiet about the primacy of state versus its citizens. Should there be a test on which should come first, what would the govt do? There is a dichotomy between the perpetuation of the existence of the state and the well being of the people. Could there be a situation when putting one above the other could lead to the other’s demise?
There is a school of thought that the continued existence of the state is primary, that the state should go on as a continuous entity, a legacy, and the interest of the people can be compromised if necessary. And there will be a time when the citizen’s interest has to give way to the interest of the state. One good example is the importation of great numbers of foreigners to replace or reinforce the locals in the name of good for the citizens. Depending on how many were brought in, the original citizens could be diluted.
This to some is a necessary evil when the original citizens are no longer competitive, their DNAs and genetic codes have degenerated and a new set of DNAs and genetics are needed to replace them. Putting it simply, the people are dispensable and can be traded or discarded for better stocks to keep the state alive into the future and for economic growth.
Such thinking or approach may not be acceptable to those who see the primacy of the citizens, the people over that of the state. The state exists because of the people. It is not necessary to compromise or endanger the existence of the state just for the sake of its citizens. It is just a case of citizens first and their interests must not be adversely affected for the good of an inanimate construct, an artificiality called the state.
This brings back the conflict between state and people. The state exists for the people or the people for the state? For a state to exist for its people, then our policy of bringing in foreigners at the expense of the locals, to become locals, is not agreeable to the citizens. The policy makers may argue otherwise, claiming that the imports are necessary and really for the good of the people. To the believers of state primacy, the people or citizens are dispensable. Bad people or poor quality people can go and be replaced. Bring in foreigners, give them citizenship and make them instant citizens, no difference.
The above argument is not similar to a stateless situation where there is no state and no citizens, a to each his own, to make the best of his own according to his talent status.
The people, particularly the PMETs and top professionals, are feeling the heat. There is an angry perception with many case examples to show that many locals have to make way, becoming redundant or by passed for the top jobs, to foreigners who were not better than them. Many were judgement calls or for more flirtatious reasons. Is it really the case that no locals are found better than foreigners at the senior positions and at the lower levels, locals could end up jobless in favour of foreigners because the latter are better skilled, qualified or simply cheaper, or because of political reasons, office politics or whatever?
The bad bards pointed to the primacy of the state and if needed, the whole original local population can be replaced by more vibrant and cheaper foreigners just to keep the state vibrant. The assumption here is that the locals without the foreigners would not be able to keep the economy vibrant for the good of everyone. They are daft, too complacent and not willing to work. There are two sides to the argument or selective arguments that can be self serving. Some see it as a sell out of the original citizens.
There are now some indications of a change in direction, to be more local focused whether in form or in substance. This is a serious matter as it affects the well being of the original citizens and the viability of the state. Which wisdom shall triumph?
There is a school of thought that the continued existence of the state is primary, that the state should go on as a continuous entity, a legacy, and the interest of the people can be compromised if necessary. And there will be a time when the citizen’s interest has to give way to the interest of the state. One good example is the importation of great numbers of foreigners to replace or reinforce the locals in the name of good for the citizens. Depending on how many were brought in, the original citizens could be diluted.
This to some is a necessary evil when the original citizens are no longer competitive, their DNAs and genetic codes have degenerated and a new set of DNAs and genetics are needed to replace them. Putting it simply, the people are dispensable and can be traded or discarded for better stocks to keep the state alive into the future and for economic growth.
Such thinking or approach may not be acceptable to those who see the primacy of the citizens, the people over that of the state. The state exists because of the people. It is not necessary to compromise or endanger the existence of the state just for the sake of its citizens. It is just a case of citizens first and their interests must not be adversely affected for the good of an inanimate construct, an artificiality called the state.
This brings back the conflict between state and people. The state exists for the people or the people for the state? For a state to exist for its people, then our policy of bringing in foreigners at the expense of the locals, to become locals, is not agreeable to the citizens. The policy makers may argue otherwise, claiming that the imports are necessary and really for the good of the people. To the believers of state primacy, the people or citizens are dispensable. Bad people or poor quality people can go and be replaced. Bring in foreigners, give them citizenship and make them instant citizens, no difference.
The above argument is not similar to a stateless situation where there is no state and no citizens, a to each his own, to make the best of his own according to his talent status.
The people, particularly the PMETs and top professionals, are feeling the heat. There is an angry perception with many case examples to show that many locals have to make way, becoming redundant or by passed for the top jobs, to foreigners who were not better than them. Many were judgement calls or for more flirtatious reasons. Is it really the case that no locals are found better than foreigners at the senior positions and at the lower levels, locals could end up jobless in favour of foreigners because the latter are better skilled, qualified or simply cheaper, or because of political reasons, office politics or whatever?
The bad bards pointed to the primacy of the state and if needed, the whole original local population can be replaced by more vibrant and cheaper foreigners just to keep the state vibrant. The assumption here is that the locals without the foreigners would not be able to keep the economy vibrant for the good of everyone. They are daft, too complacent and not willing to work. There are two sides to the argument or selective arguments that can be self serving. Some see it as a sell out of the original citizens.
There are now some indications of a change in direction, to be more local focused whether in form or in substance. This is a serious matter as it affects the well being of the original citizens and the viability of the state. Which wisdom shall triumph?
1/28/2012
How to justify high pay
My human resource experience apparently has gone out of date as far as justification for pay or higher pay is concerned. Let me just recall some of the basic premises in designing the compensation package for employees. HR will normally look at the job specs, the qualifications needed, the skill, risk involved if applicable, health hazard, even look at environment. Then HR will mix these with the incumbent’s qualifications and skill, add in market comparables, stir them thoroughly in a pot, remove the flotsams, and there we have it, a pay package for the various jobs.
Today it is more complicated and complex and a totally new dimension. I am told that corruption is now a factor to be added in the pay package. There are a few variations to this. One is if other people are corrupt and the total income is more than their actual, this must be taken into account, eg the opportunities to receive bribe or under table money, to gain from issuing of licences or approvals. The other aspect is the infamous notion that since people are likely to be corrupt, let’s pay them upfront so that they need not be corrupt anymore.
Revolving door? I just heard of this new phenomenon. In short it is like jobs laying in waiting for top people who left their offices. The most common quoted examples are the American political leaders who have high paying jobs waiting for them after their terms in office. Actually in my time, or even today, this is nothing new. The top dogs are in demand when they quit their jobs. Many offers will come in from organizations or job hunters waiting in queue. Why should this be a factor to use to mark up pay of incumbents, I really dunno.
I am also told that if other people can go on lecturing circuits and collect millions, this is also a factor to consider. Also, along the same line of argument, people who can write books and sell because their country’s readership is big, and people like to read what they write, this can also be a factor to consider in working out a pay package. The reference point is always some American Presidents. I am just wondering what kind of conceitedness and arrogance would dare one to compare with American Presidents.
Oh, another thing, when one engages an employee, one must make provision for his retirement or his opportunity cost for coming on board. If he will lose out in terms of skill, seniority or contacts, this must also be compensated in the whole pay package.
The golden handshake is also quite a norm now for senior employees. Now this is fair as no one would want to move from their comfort zone to try out something new. This could be another substitute for the above. There have been many instances of great talents receiving a big payout for doing badly on the job or not even starting on it.
The most troublesome one is sacrifice especially in public service. How much to measure sacrifice? This is very tricky, trickier than trying to compensate for the temptation to corrupt. How to value what a person is sacrificing, family time, quality time with children or grandparents etc etc. Everyone it so family oriented. Another quality time which is ominously absent is time with mistresses or girl friends. But this is noted I am sure. And being ridicule in public forums and cyberspace surely command quite a price too.
Another thing to consider is to motivate the top management with a carrot dangling in their face. Do good work boy and the carrot will be yours. Blimey, top management needs additional carrot to do their very best. If not, even with out of this world salary, they will slack and not do their best. Is this motivation thing going a bit too far? In all my HR time, I have never doubt that the top management, with or without the carrot, will be there to do their very best, to lead by example. If their leadership example is to do mediocre work unless the carrot is big enough, they should not be hired in the first place.
I think I will be quite lost if ask to do the job again. I am already feeling inadequate. This will require new skills and mindset from the HR profession to be equipped to do a proper job in view of the new challenges and new social norms. Luckily I am no longer in the profession. I am sure I have missed out quite a lot of the new factors that I don’t even know.
During my time, HR’s job was much easier. You interview the candidate, lay down the package without having to worry what happens if the candidate decides to quit later. The responsibility is to offer the candidate a suitable package, agreeable by both parties there and then. If there is a separation for whatever reason, the candidate would have to look for a new job on his own merit. And that is a non issue as the candidate should be good enough to do that with his qualification and experience. The candidate is always a top dog or else he would not even be considered. Don’t they have any confidence in themselves to land another equally big paying job?
Today it is more complicated and complex and a totally new dimension. I am told that corruption is now a factor to be added in the pay package. There are a few variations to this. One is if other people are corrupt and the total income is more than their actual, this must be taken into account, eg the opportunities to receive bribe or under table money, to gain from issuing of licences or approvals. The other aspect is the infamous notion that since people are likely to be corrupt, let’s pay them upfront so that they need not be corrupt anymore.
Revolving door? I just heard of this new phenomenon. In short it is like jobs laying in waiting for top people who left their offices. The most common quoted examples are the American political leaders who have high paying jobs waiting for them after their terms in office. Actually in my time, or even today, this is nothing new. The top dogs are in demand when they quit their jobs. Many offers will come in from organizations or job hunters waiting in queue. Why should this be a factor to use to mark up pay of incumbents, I really dunno.
I am also told that if other people can go on lecturing circuits and collect millions, this is also a factor to consider. Also, along the same line of argument, people who can write books and sell because their country’s readership is big, and people like to read what they write, this can also be a factor to consider in working out a pay package. The reference point is always some American Presidents. I am just wondering what kind of conceitedness and arrogance would dare one to compare with American Presidents.
Oh, another thing, when one engages an employee, one must make provision for his retirement or his opportunity cost for coming on board. If he will lose out in terms of skill, seniority or contacts, this must also be compensated in the whole pay package.
The golden handshake is also quite a norm now for senior employees. Now this is fair as no one would want to move from their comfort zone to try out something new. This could be another substitute for the above. There have been many instances of great talents receiving a big payout for doing badly on the job or not even starting on it.
The most troublesome one is sacrifice especially in public service. How much to measure sacrifice? This is very tricky, trickier than trying to compensate for the temptation to corrupt. How to value what a person is sacrificing, family time, quality time with children or grandparents etc etc. Everyone it so family oriented. Another quality time which is ominously absent is time with mistresses or girl friends. But this is noted I am sure. And being ridicule in public forums and cyberspace surely command quite a price too.
Another thing to consider is to motivate the top management with a carrot dangling in their face. Do good work boy and the carrot will be yours. Blimey, top management needs additional carrot to do their very best. If not, even with out of this world salary, they will slack and not do their best. Is this motivation thing going a bit too far? In all my HR time, I have never doubt that the top management, with or without the carrot, will be there to do their very best, to lead by example. If their leadership example is to do mediocre work unless the carrot is big enough, they should not be hired in the first place.
I think I will be quite lost if ask to do the job again. I am already feeling inadequate. This will require new skills and mindset from the HR profession to be equipped to do a proper job in view of the new challenges and new social norms. Luckily I am no longer in the profession. I am sure I have missed out quite a lot of the new factors that I don’t even know.
During my time, HR’s job was much easier. You interview the candidate, lay down the package without having to worry what happens if the candidate decides to quit later. The responsibility is to offer the candidate a suitable package, agreeable by both parties there and then. If there is a separation for whatever reason, the candidate would have to look for a new job on his own merit. And that is a non issue as the candidate should be good enough to do that with his qualification and experience. The candidate is always a top dog or else he would not even be considered. Don’t they have any confidence in themselves to land another equally big paying job?
1/27/2012
Disband all govt service organizations if….
Medical services, housing, education, public transportation, etc, are normally provided by the govt as institutions to serve the people. These organizations were set up using public funds to provide a cheaper alternative to their private counterparts. They have to be cheaper and decent enough to be of any use to benefit the people. They are the reasons why there is a govt and why people have to pay taxes.
Can the people accept the services of public institutions like hospitals, transportation, housing and education to be more expensive than private institutions when the former is fully paid by the public while the latter were established by private funds? The people should scream foul even if they are priced the same or slightly cheaper. It must be much cheaper as they are built using the people’s money. A large part of the cost is already paid by the people themselves. Bad or poor quality service of such institutions is not acceptable and might as well save the money if they are meant to be that way.
Can you believe it if such services are charged the same or similar as the private sector? If they do, they should be disbanded or sold to the private sector and the money be returned to the people. The govt should not be allowed to set up public service institutions with public money if they cannot charge cheaper than the private sector with privately sourced money.
It is simple economic reasoning and justification. It is common sense. Using public money to set up public institutions is like having them for free. And to charge near the same rate or more than the private sector is nonsense and unacceptable.
It is time that the govt reviews all the public institutions that are not competitive vis a vis the private operators, stop providing them and lower the taxes on the people. Let the private sector run them using private money. Public institutions that cannot compete with private institutions on better and cheaper services have no economic reason to exist. It is actually a waste of public fund and tax payers’ money.
Can the people accept the services of public institutions like hospitals, transportation, housing and education to be more expensive than private institutions when the former is fully paid by the public while the latter were established by private funds? The people should scream foul even if they are priced the same or slightly cheaper. It must be much cheaper as they are built using the people’s money. A large part of the cost is already paid by the people themselves. Bad or poor quality service of such institutions is not acceptable and might as well save the money if they are meant to be that way.
Can you believe it if such services are charged the same or similar as the private sector? If they do, they should be disbanded or sold to the private sector and the money be returned to the people. The govt should not be allowed to set up public service institutions with public money if they cannot charge cheaper than the private sector with privately sourced money.
It is simple economic reasoning and justification. It is common sense. Using public money to set up public institutions is like having them for free. And to charge near the same rate or more than the private sector is nonsense and unacceptable.
It is time that the govt reviews all the public institutions that are not competitive vis a vis the private operators, stop providing them and lower the taxes on the people. Let the private sector run them using private money. Public institutions that cannot compete with private institutions on better and cheaper services have no economic reason to exist. It is actually a waste of public fund and tax payers’ money.
Is sexual misconduct a seizable offence?
The two senior civil servants were reported to have been arrested and released on bail. So far most of the reports are highlighting their sexual indiscretions with the same woman and with some inkling on the awards of contracts through tenders. As far as I know, sexual misconduct is not a seizable offence. Correct me if I am wrong. It may be conduct prejudicial to the good image of an organization and may lead to a dismissal or demotion, definitely no arrest is warranted.
Why were the two men arrested? I think the more serious offence is money related, some kind of corruption. Can’t imagine anyone being arrested for sexual misconduct. I think Changi would not be big enough to accommodate them all.
Why were the two men arrested? I think the more serious offence is money related, some kind of corruption. Can’t imagine anyone being arrested for sexual misconduct. I think Changi would not be big enough to accommodate them all.
Poll on new minister’s salary
The poll has ended and 180 participants cast their votes. 3 said yes, 173 said no and 4 were unsure. The final result is that 96% was against the salary package despite it being supported and approved by PAP.
What to make out of this little survey? One thing, the participants are serious and thinking individuals and probably reflective of what the educated and informed Singaporean’s thinking. It is beyond any doubt that the people do not agree with the huge pay for ministers after all the reasons given. I think they are not against paying the ministers well, but what is being paid is still incomprehensible and apprehensible.
Did the PAP really have the blessing of the people by voting for their pay package in Parliament? It is obvious that the people and the PAP are having different dreams, one a frolicking wet dream and the other a nightmare.
I doubt the PAP will do anything to change what has been approved by them in Parliament and will continue with the new pay. They will take it as legally approved and thus there is nothing wrong to it. If the series of misfortunes, corruptions, flaws, flaks, faults, mistakes and acts of God continue to befall this little piece of rock, the big salary will weigh down heavily on their neck comes next GE.
The political price for going it alone without the blessing of the people is high and may be critical the next time round. This time the people is not with the PAP on this salary package. Perhaps, or maybe this little poll is not really representative of the feeling of all Singaporeans. Well, why don’t the authoritative ST with its wider reach, conduct a bigger poll to assess the pulse of the people on this same issue and give a more meaningful feedback to the PAP? Maybe it is better not to know the truth, just bury the head in the sand and all is well.
What to make out of this little survey? One thing, the participants are serious and thinking individuals and probably reflective of what the educated and informed Singaporean’s thinking. It is beyond any doubt that the people do not agree with the huge pay for ministers after all the reasons given. I think they are not against paying the ministers well, but what is being paid is still incomprehensible and apprehensible.
Did the PAP really have the blessing of the people by voting for their pay package in Parliament? It is obvious that the people and the PAP are having different dreams, one a frolicking wet dream and the other a nightmare.
I doubt the PAP will do anything to change what has been approved by them in Parliament and will continue with the new pay. They will take it as legally approved and thus there is nothing wrong to it. If the series of misfortunes, corruptions, flaws, flaks, faults, mistakes and acts of God continue to befall this little piece of rock, the big salary will weigh down heavily on their neck comes next GE.
The political price for going it alone without the blessing of the people is high and may be critical the next time round. This time the people is not with the PAP on this salary package. Perhaps, or maybe this little poll is not really representative of the feeling of all Singaporeans. Well, why don’t the authoritative ST with its wider reach, conduct a bigger poll to assess the pulse of the people on this same issue and give a more meaningful feedback to the PAP? Maybe it is better not to know the truth, just bury the head in the sand and all is well.
An intelligent way to fight corruption
Every country is faced with the disease of corruption and finds their own ways to deal with them. The easiest and quite effective way, in case the problem is too big, is to simply behead them when caught. For a big country like China, they have yet to find a better way to deal with corruption. India, an equally big country with equally big corruption problem chose a diametrically opposite way, to live with corruption. And this is a method that many third world countries have adopted. It also suits the power of the day, to share in the corruption and get rich as well.
In between these two, there are many different models, with law enforcement and anti corruption agencies playing their part. But all are destined to fail as they go against the grain of being human, human nature and human greed. As such, even the anti corruption agencies ended with corruption in their own ranks.
Human greed is just another desire like sex, hunger and thirst. It is part of human nature. Once this is acknowledged and accepted, it is easier to deal with in a more effective, efficient and humane way. Don’t treat it like a disease or a crime. Treat it like a business, in economic terms, a human want, a desire to be satisfied at a price.
This approach is the essence of the Singapore way to manage corruption. Accept that every bean is corruptible at some time, at some place, at some price. Satisfy this want, this desire, and the urge will be smothered. After a hearty meal, after an orgasm, the desire to eat or to have sex is gone. But prepare to feed the desire again when it arises.
The high pay to manage corruption is a brilliant and humane approach to tackling the problem of greed. Oops, shouldn’t call it a problem, it is just a human trait. Feeding the greed does not go against the grain of nature. It is living with nature, living with the weaknesses of being human. No need to put people behind bars, or behead anyone. And by paying to quench the thirst, everyone is happy, the payer and the recipient. And with more money in circulation, it is also good for the economy too. It lubricates and makes the country more prosperous, can buy big cars and big houses, making the GDP number better looking. It also creates jobs, especially services.
It is a unique way to deal with the oldest disease of human beans. And it works, and is good for everyone. Actually many countries are also doing it, except illegally. By making it legal, crime rate also goes down. People who are corrupt are just succumbing to the temptation of the flesh. Send them to a half way house for rehabilitation.
It requires exceptional talent and intelligence to see the brilliance of this approach to managing the human desire of greed. And it requires exceptional intelligence to truly appreciate it beauty.
I think I may submit this paper to the UN for consideration. May even get a Nobel Prize for championing human rights. But I am only stealing the credit. This is definitely not my idea. I am just plagiarizing.
In between these two, there are many different models, with law enforcement and anti corruption agencies playing their part. But all are destined to fail as they go against the grain of being human, human nature and human greed. As such, even the anti corruption agencies ended with corruption in their own ranks.
Human greed is just another desire like sex, hunger and thirst. It is part of human nature. Once this is acknowledged and accepted, it is easier to deal with in a more effective, efficient and humane way. Don’t treat it like a disease or a crime. Treat it like a business, in economic terms, a human want, a desire to be satisfied at a price.
This approach is the essence of the Singapore way to manage corruption. Accept that every bean is corruptible at some time, at some place, at some price. Satisfy this want, this desire, and the urge will be smothered. After a hearty meal, after an orgasm, the desire to eat or to have sex is gone. But prepare to feed the desire again when it arises.
The high pay to manage corruption is a brilliant and humane approach to tackling the problem of greed. Oops, shouldn’t call it a problem, it is just a human trait. Feeding the greed does not go against the grain of nature. It is living with nature, living with the weaknesses of being human. No need to put people behind bars, or behead anyone. And by paying to quench the thirst, everyone is happy, the payer and the recipient. And with more money in circulation, it is also good for the economy too. It lubricates and makes the country more prosperous, can buy big cars and big houses, making the GDP number better looking. It also creates jobs, especially services.
It is a unique way to deal with the oldest disease of human beans. And it works, and is good for everyone. Actually many countries are also doing it, except illegally. By making it legal, crime rate also goes down. People who are corrupt are just succumbing to the temptation of the flesh. Send them to a half way house for rehabilitation.
It requires exceptional talent and intelligence to see the brilliance of this approach to managing the human desire of greed. And it requires exceptional intelligence to truly appreciate it beauty.
I think I may submit this paper to the UN for consideration. May even get a Nobel Prize for championing human rights. But I am only stealing the credit. This is definitely not my idea. I am just plagiarizing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)