who will be the decider to swing votes for the pap?

i was reading the straits times this morning and reporter lydia lim in her article suggested that the older and most affected group during the economic restructuring would be the one to swing the votes for the pap. she was referring to the unemployed and not too well educated populace who would probably be so won over by the coming handouts from the govt. this will be the biggest irony that can happen. the group that suffered the most and bore the brunt of all the high wage and high price and high fee policies of the govt, will now blindly vote for the govt all for a little handouts. maybe lydia is right. this group isn't that knowledgeable, unthinking, easily moved by an immediate gain. but would the lower income group, including these deprived senior citizens really come to terms with their existing condition, when they were hard pressed by all the increases except their income, to be swayed to vote for the pap? would the knowledge that not only their income did not increase, but basic cost has also gone up in every area and eats into their little income remain a sore point in their minds? would the realisation that they could not make ends meet and have to struggle daily to make every cent counts while people are all laughing to the banks make them feel any ire towards the govt? would the most affected group really turn out to be the strongest supporter of the govt. we would not know until after everything is over. at the moment it is all postulation and guessing.

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.