in the real world, how good are you?

Education Great up to a point. Singapore's students are brilliant in math-science tests; American kids test much worse but do better in the real world. Why? Fareed Zakaria, NewsweekJan 6, 2006. i pick the above quote from littlespeck.com. what i would like to add, yes, in the real world, if you have a billionaire father, do you need to be very smart to run one of his companies? but if you don't have a billionaire father, or if your billionaire father is not too confident of himself or you, then he will employ an american who is so so but was made a ceo by his father to be ceo in your father's company. and you will have to smell his arse even if you have straight As. this is the real world.

not cost effective charity organisation has no right to exist

i was pondering over the two figures of dialysis treatment cost quoted in my earlier posting. $180 in a profit making hospital against $162 at nkf. the difference is really peanuts if one is subsidised by public donations, the govt and the charges paid by the patients. my main point of argument is that a charity set up with the help of public fund to help the needy must be able to reduce the burden of the cost of treatment very substantially, maybe down to 10% or 30% of what a profit making hospital or govt hospital is charging. what is the point of setting up a duplicate facility only to cut the cost to the patients by 10 or 20%? taking the nkf as an example, would it be a more cost effective charity if it does away with all its clinics and infrastructure and retains only the fund raising and administrative function to manage and disburse the funds to the patients? with all the cost reduced to maybe less than 10% of what it spends for the clinics, medical supplies, medical staff etc, would it be able to give or subsidise each patient the $180 charged by a profit making hospital? and the patients could actually be fully subsidised by the donations. isn't this what a charity should be doing, paying as much as it can for the needy patients? i am not sure if the nkf fund could subsidise the full $180. but definitely it could subsidise quite a big portion of this if it does not need to operate and pay for its huge medical facilities and operations. and this is applicable to all cost ineffective and inefficient charity organisations. they should not set up any facility and charge almost the same as a profit making or govt built facilities. just collect the donations and reimburse or subsidise the patients and needy recipients. if the setting up of their facilities only save the people they helped by a little, and if the amount of savings to these people is substantial without having their own set up, then they should do away with their facilities. let the experts in their fields manage the facilities at the most cost effective way. yeah, privatisation and efficiency and cost consciousness. charities shall just concentrate on disbursing funds to benefit most the people they are helping. if what they are doing is not cost effective, they are actually wasting precious donors money.

the stock market is on the run

the new year saw a revival of the dying stock market and running like a charging bull. this is contrary to what i have posted earlier, that the market is at the brink of a collapse. my rationale is a simple supply and demand equation. when the number of stocks, derivatives and other financial products keep increasing, and the number of investors and the value of their investments keep dwindling, the market will die a natural death through over supply and lack of demand. in the last few days we are seeing a surge of demand, with transaction value hitting more than a million daily. but this is nothing new as the same value were hit in nov but then disappeared again. the market is as real as it is unreal. the volume and value transacted are real. but they are fictitious in the sense that they are probably churned up by a few big fund managers or big players. and this churning will stop as abruptly as it started if there is no support from a wide base of investors. the value of a stock can be as low as the piece of paper it is printed on. it is a perceived value and the investors must be convinced that it is worth the money they put in. or often the reason is that the value is sustainable. this is only true when the funds continue to support the price and more investors join in the fray. the market makers must not pull out as fast as they push up the market. more genuine money from big funds must go into the market to provide the support it sorely needs. only then can the market's uptrend be maintained to draw back the investors. confidence in the market has to be built over a sustained period of time. just a flash in the pan surge can be dangerous if it is just a weak attempt to push up the market and support by talks only. the stock market is a very important institution in the whole economy. any mismanagement that leads to its death will have far greater consequences than one can imagine. we can only hope that people are seriously working to revive the market and nurse it to health. and the real demand in terms of investors and capital going into the market must be there. otherwise the bull will turn to bear faster than you think. so far the only major input into the market is the supply side, more stocks, derivatives, covered warrants, discount notes, equity linked notes etc. the demand side has been neglected. i see a little spark in attracting the muslim funds. at least it will boost up the demand side a little. let us pray that the stock market is in good hands.

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.