charities are now big business

why are charities now a big business here? can we afford to do away with the commercialisation of charities? long long time ago, charities were collecting money in 5c and 10c. today that kind of collection is frown upon. wasteful, unsophisticated, untalented enterprise. what we shall do is commercialisation, beg in a big way, beg with style, employ super talents and superstars to do the job. never mind about money. pay them well or you get peanuts with monkeys. so we have today big charities as big business. the objectives are now different. pull out every trick in the marketing bag and get the money to come in. that is the objective. why can't charities survive with a few cents here and there? why must charities raised big money? why is money not enough in charities? why helping the helpless is now so expensive? why is there a need for such a massive effort to raise so much money? doing an ivf cost between $7,000 to $20,000. a new drug for heart patient cost $6,000 a month. it is called the behtahan therapy. oops it is called the bosentan therapy. a dialysis cost $180 per treatment and a patient needs to be treated about 8 to 10 times a month. let me see, about $1,500 to $1,800, in order to be alive. the advances in medical science, in medication, have kept many people alive. the high cost of medication and treatment have also kept many people alive. people need money to buy time to live. and these costs are so high. looks like there is no other alternative but to set up professional fund raising organisations.

chen shui bian and sun yat sen

i saw a big picture of chen shui bian taking a very respectful bow in front of a sun yat sen photo in taiwan, in the straits times today. i am just wondering when is chen shui bian going to make an announcement to remove all the pictures of sun yat sen from govt and official buildings? sun yat sen's stand is a united china as opposed to chen shui bian's two china and independent taiwan. is he doing a koizumi in taiwan? koizumi visited the yasukuni shrine and said he wanted to establish good relations with china and koreas, and will not go for a remilitarisation of japan. chen shui bian and koizumi have many things in common in terms of tactics and public gestures, and motives.

nkf patient not paying dialysis fee

the straits times editorial commented about this group of patients who refused to pay their dialysis fee as a sign of protest against the old nkf management. and they seen as disloyal to the establishment that helped them. what about the other side of the coin? being duped by the establishment and paid more than they should? but what is important is that the feelings of betrayal and anger are still very strong. they are not going to go away so easily. did i hear a report saying that the staff and patients wanted to move on?

talent meritocracy and exam meritocracy

'yours is a talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy. there are some parts of the intellect that we are not able to test well - like creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition. most of all, america has a culture of learning that challenges conventional wisdom, even if it means challenging authority. these are the areas where singapore must learn from america.' quote from sharman, minister of education, comparing singapore and american education. the first point on talent. what kind of talents shall we value? sense of adventure, curiosity, like spending 10 days in a tub of water? or the talents of tiger woods that make billions, or bill gates and simwonghoo's talents in enterprise. shall the nation keep on wasting money on useless talents? or shall resources be channelled to useful talents? here i am referring to national and public resources. private resources can be used by the private party for anything. no one to account to. challenging conventional wisdom. this is a culture that we sorely lacks, or we don't encourage. leaf must be green in colour. sky must be blue. put any other colours in the exam answer will be marked wrong. and all the myths that we have created are the whole truth. unchallengeable or your backside will be sore. challenging authority. who dares? putting up white elephant cardboards is such a harrowing experience. i think we are still not ready to accept a culture of challenging authority. but we can make a start by challenging conventional wisdom, start the thinking process in the schools. from primary schools the children must be taught to question. and maybe...actually questioning conventional wisdom is also questioning authority. but starting them at primary school will take years to bear fruit. it will give society time to adjust. it is the problem of the next generation.

fuzzy logic or suka suka principle

according to a forumer in the today paper, he supports fuzzy logic in the moe. his reasons, scholars must be allowed to take any course they like as long as they have a passion in the subject. or when a talented person has a strong passion, he should be allowed to do anything he wants. sounds very familiar isn't? spending public money to satisfy one's own fancy? my view is that if it is your own money, go ahead, splurge on anything. who cares. you can make yourself the happiest person in taking a course in sexology too, if that is where your passion lies. in the case referred to by the forumer, leong szehian, he was uncomfortable that A star scholars were told to buck up and score good grades to prepare them for r and d jobs on their return. and isn't this is what the students were told before accepting the scholarship? they knew why they were sent for their studies. there is a specific objective. why are people advocating or negating on their undertakings after signing on the dotted line? is it because they are talented and can do whatever they want, without any principles or ethics? in the first place, do not accept the scholarship if you have no intention of fulfilling it. it is a breach of faith. unethical and unacceptable. it is not your father's money that you are spending. but in the pursuit of fuzzy logic, to a point it is acceptable. for some special talents, fuzziness is good as they can then go wild with their exceptionable talents and perhaps discover a new theory. fuzzy logic is not for the ordinary men in the street. fuzziness is inborn among the ordinary men. they have no logic to start with and many things they do are fuzzy in a natural way. but i believe the moe's fuzziness is a managed fuzziness, intended fuzziness at a different plane. and certain organisations may specifically allocate funds to scholars under such a programme. but it cannot be fuzzy logic throughout the whole nation, at random. everyone suka suka do anything they want. imagine every administrator in public service applies the suka suka principle, or fuzzy logic, what will happen?