2 votes for mature oldies a bad choice?

That restructuring has hit Singapore's elderly (economic definition here: any one over 45) the hardest has become patently clear, shown by the government allocating the biggest bag of goodies to them. Some media people call them the crucial swing vote in the coming election. The expectation (at least until the perks started to fly) was that many of them would vote against the government. That got me thinking. There must be some old-timers in the PAP who must be saying, "Thank God, we didn't give an extra vote to Singaporeans between 35-60 years who were married and had children!" the above is from an article by seah chiang nee in the littlespeck.com. in brief, chiang nee's contention is that it is a good thing that the proposal for the oldies to have two votes will backfire on the pap this time given their hard times. i choose to disagree. i think the $1 billion dollar handouts will score quite well among the oldies who needed the dole. and a few dollars will mean a lot to them. they can be easily satisified given their dire straits. no need to throw peanuts at them. hungry people are quite easy to please. they don't think too well either. many suffering from dementia. and if $1 billion does not do the job, next time can increase it to $2 billion and call it workfare plus.

insurance industry: how to destroy more jobs?

from a workforce of more than 20,000 agents to 13,000 today. that must be a great way to create jobs. from an attractive profession that provides a decent and good livelihood, many agents are trying to make ends meet. that is another great achievement. why has a flourishing industry that supports a huge and happy workforce been battered to a state that joining the industry is a case of no better choice? i wonder how many other industries are facing the same plight? maybe insurance agents will do better if they call themselves entrepreneurs. that title will entitle them to earn more and be respectable. is it because the insurance agents were earning too much and people begruded their high income? and they were able to afford big cars and big houses, which probably make people's eyes turned from green to red. one thing for sure, these agents or the industry were not in a position to tell the world that they are professional people and deserve to be paid well. and, because they are able to provide a good level of service and professionalism, they should be paid more than a peanut. i find it very odd that the insurance people are not able to demand to be paid well and demand to be respected while people working in non profit charitable organisations can demand such high respect and high income. qualification may be a factor, i think. they should create an insurance university and award all the agents with first class honours and doctorate. i think that might help. once they get the papers, their work scope can be that of a clerk. but all they need to do is to give themselves a big title and pay accordingly. people will accept that formula. the game will be different if the insuracnce people were able to justify their own value and income and decide how much theyshould be paid. they can even create more jobs with better job titles to be paid more....only if they could not be questioned. i think many insurance agents would qualify for workfare bonuses.

an honest answer from a blind man

why is the society of the blind having more members that are not blind? the blind membership chairman answered. 'when the applicants tell me that they are blind i have to take their words for it.' the above story was posted in the talkingcock forum. and i wonder why would these people with sight wanted to join a society for blind people?

singapore is a truly open society

this blog is the best example of singapore as an open society. i have written everything truthfully as they are. i have written about everything that can be written. is this not enough proof of our openness. must invite george soros to visit my blog.

budget terminal ok

someone replied that the name budget terminal is fine as it truly reflects the character of the terminal, for budget travellers only. ok, ok, i accept that. from now onwards all hdb flats shall be called budget flats or cheap flats. no more rivervale or riverdale or whatever. punggol just call punggol, sengkang just call sengkang. punggol lane 1, 2 and 3. sengkang lane 4, 5 and 6. so no punggol sixth avenue huh. budget names are good for budget things. cheap food courts, cheap shops. we can retain names like kopitiams. this should be fine. where is my blakang mati? sentosa? weird? can budget people be allowed to have a little illusion and hallucination? i remember the story when the poor farmer told his children that yellow sweet potato is called pork and red sweet potato is called roast meat. facing reality everyday can be quite painful actually. changi international airport for rich travellers, budget terminal for not rich travellers. nice, truthful, appropriate and pragmatic.