tipping taxis

the first case of ridicule is reported in the front page of the straits times. cabby drove passenger to destination without asking his preferred route. passenger complained and got a refund. i will do that the next time if cabby forgets to ask and get my refund. this also assumes that all the passengers know which route to take. if one is not a driver, how does one know which is the best route to take? and now, if one is not frequently on the road, one would not know which route will be the most expensive given the number of gantry points to pay. things are getting more interesting by the day. an innocent passenger may just say go this way and that way thinking it will be cheaper but ended up paying more because of the gantries. and then make a complain against the taxi driver or refuses to pay. we have a really informed public who knows which route to take, better than the taxi drivers.

education: tharman said money is no issue

tharman reiterated that money should not be an issue for good students to study in expensive independent schools. hamizah nordin, the top female malay student has applied to join rgs. good for her. tharman said that there are generous financing schemes to ensure that no student is deprived of the opportunity to study in independent schools. but if they are poor and cannot afford the fees, just beg and they will be given. oops, sorry he never used the word beg. it is my dramatisation. sensationalisation. he just said apply for financial assistance scheme. just spicing it up a bit. to me, applying for assistance is just like begging. i see it as a matter of approach. the current approach is that it is very nice to see people come forward and beg. what's wrong with begging when you are poor? nothing wrong right? when you are poor you are poor and you are expected to beg. and the rich will be most happy and generous to give. you get your money, we get our share of feeling generous by giving, and feeling very kind and compassionate. why can't we adopt a different approach. since there are generous funds available, why don't these funds be given to some schools and let them provide quality education at the current govt school fees. and poor students who are good need not have to beg. can we be kinder to people and allow them to hide their poverty without having to wear them on their faces, and beg for everything? can we leave a little pride in the poor bugger and let him quietly move along in life in his little world of not enough? or does the rich and powerful think it is a very nice thing to see poor people coming forward to beg?

quote of the week

'we must not create an environment where we have to pay extra for politeness, honesty, safety and cleanliness...while travelling in a taxi or shopping in a retail outlet.' by forumer jeffrey law lee beng in the today paper. what is revealing here is that this mentality that everything is money, everything can be bought, has sunk in so deeply in the psychic of many people that it is becoming a part of them, of their thinking process, of their behaviour and decision making. now you can't blame the people for wanting to be paid for their good service, for their smile and politeness, for their honesty, for doing a good job, for keeping the place clean and safe. what next? shouldn't we be cultivating a people that is gracious, honest, polite, responsible etc as what is expected from a good and decent person? can we singaporeans be proud of any of these character traits that is part of them? or singaporeans did not have any of these, that they have to be paid to be good and decent, and honest and to do a good job?

is nkf expected to continue to grow?

why is nkf expected to continue to provide more and more hospitals and facilities? isn't nkf just a charitable organisation that is supposed to help only some of the needy people? why is the nkf taking the full role of providing dialysis treatments? nkf must know that they have only a limited role and must limit its appetite. and nobody is going to blame nkf if it cannot expand its services, to build more facilities. they should not be too ambitious as in the past when the sky's the limit. it has to redefine its role in the context of the whole medical establishment in the country, taking into consideration the primary medical providers. should nkf usurp the role of govt hospitals and keep asking the public for more donations because it wants to do more and more? and if the funds are not forthcoming, then it becomes the fault of the public, that the people are less generous, less compassionate, less caring and less human? should the public be held at ransom by charitable organisations who said we want to do more but we don't have the fund? charitable organisations should work within what they can afford and what the donors are willing to donate voluntarily. and no one shall be pressured by whatever means to donate. if nkf cannot raise the additional fund to build another 2 or 3 clinics, then just work with the existing number of clinics. is that a problem? when an organisation has to depend on charity, it has to behave like a charity. people who depend on social assistance must live within their means. it is not a private foundation that has unlimited fund and can keep trying to figure out what else they can do to spend their hoards of money. the lee foundation can do that, the shaw foundation can do that, bill gates foundation can do that. cause they are rich and have their own means.

blast in north london

looks like the hunter is now the hunted. big explosion at oil depot north of london. blair is going to answer for all these bombings in uk. he has opened the door for the terrorists to make london a must hit target, next in importance to the usa. what goes around will come around. people who go around bombing other people's homeland will only have their homeland being bombed. those who live by the sword will die by the sword. how else can justice be served to the mighty if it is a way traffic.