huha over transport fare hike

Fare hikes of public transport The recent announcement of fare hikes is causing a lot of comments and dissentment among the commuters. But if one is to look at the rationale, ie the rise in oil prices, the 2c increase is nothing alarming. All the complaints and arguments against the fare price adjustment model and the way the transport operators are allowed to monopolise the system for profit have been thrown out over and over again. Nothing new and all very simple to understand why the system is not favouring the commuters but the operators. Then today Leong Sze Hian came out with the ridiculous suggestion that fare price should be pegged with quality of service, and fines and punishment to the operators for failing. All these are way off the target. In the first place the operators are expected and must ensure an acceptable standard and quality of service. Otherwise they have no right to exist. It is not just a commercial enterprise but an essential public service. Secondly, making them pay fines and raising their cost will only see these cost be passed to the commuters. That is for sure. This suggestion is a no brainer. The whole fault of the system is privatisation and running it as a profit centre. Its reason to exist and operate becomes one of profit and not a service to the people and nation. And giving them a monopoly status to run for profit is even more ridiculous. It is better that essential services should be returned to the govt and operate as a stats board. The argument that stats boards are inefficient is bull. If the stats board cannot run any organisation or operation efficiently, then the whole bunch should be fired. Hey, we pay them big money, remember? And operating essential services under a stats board does not mean that they cannot make profit. But profit should not be the main reason for its existence. Neither should the silly argument that under stats boards it will be run at a loss. Why are these stupid reasons be shafted to the people to believe in them?

what did andy ho said about bloggers and journalists?

Andy Ho's article in the Straits Times, 'Blogging's more than idle chatter' was not meant to be. According to Andy, Journalists tend to be professional and accurate and also analyse issues of public concern. Bloggers' main obligation is to be interesting. I may agree that Journalists tend to be accurate on selective news that they chose to print or not to print. Bloggers may or may not be accurate but also selectively chose to print or not to print. Hard to tell the difference actually. As for the second part on analysing issues, I think this has since been compromised as Journalists are now expected to be circumscribed on the issues they are championing. But as Andy went on, his views of Bloggers started to veer away. This is what he said. 'As a result, much of what bloggers offer is either misinformed, self indulgent opinion or thoughtful but unargued ones.' I think journalists too are often misinformed or intentionally misinformed, and definitely self indulgent and self opinionated. And as for being thoughtful and publishing a well argued case against an unargued one by the bloggers, I do not see how a case is well argued when it is a monologue whereby the journalist argued against himself with his own selective questions and answers. Other than simple factual reportings, I would submit that many professional pieces published by Journalists are also biased, opinionated pieces. And worst, many are so distorted that truth has taken on a different meaning.

time to spend your medisave!

Good time is here, no need for medical safety net! It was reported in the media with such jubilation that more people are opting for B1 and A class wards and private hospitals because they can use more of their medisave fund. So there is more money to spend on medicare. And with the economy growing, it is time for celebration, it is time to squander the medisave away. Throw prudence to the wind. The money in the medisave should be spent away merrily. It is time to encourage more consumption of the good life.

myth 47

'Singaporeans did not have enough savings for retirements' I can't believe that this is true. And it is true given the concern expressed by MPs. Look at this. [b]Helping Singaporeans save for retirement a concern for MPsBy May Wong, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 31 July 2006 1958 hrs SINGAPORE : Singaporeans' lack of savings for retirement is a key concern of some MPs; this is especially worrying as Singapore is facing an ageing population. By 2030, one in five Singaporeans will be aged 65 years and above, and being financially independent may be a problem if Singaporeans do not start saving for their old age now. [/b] How could Singaporeans be short of retirement fund when we were the second highest savers in Asia after Japan? How could that be when the Govt has stashed up $200 billion in reserves? How can that be when the Medisave Account requirement is $30k and will go on higher? How can this be when the minimum sum is $80k and will be more over the years? Where have all the money saved the Singaporeans gone to? I can think of two big holes. The depreciating assets in the homes they paid for and the money lost in the stock market. How much were lost? My ballpark figures are in the billions. Maybe more than $10 billions. But with $30k in medisave and $80k minimum in CPF savings, would not that make retired Singaporeans filthy rich? Why is $110k minimum of strong S$ be considered not enough? Not enough according to who? Many around the world would be thinking a a happy retirement with this kind of money in their savings. What is wrong with these numbers? What happens when all the money is not enough? Cost of living, the cost to keep one alive in Singapore is getting ridiculously high. A retired Singaporean must have at least $110k in their retirement fund and still considered short when all he needs is a roof over his head and his 3 meals. What are the basis of computation? Still want to travel around the world, live in 5 stars hospital, swinging with dance partners, enjoying fine dining? I would think many would be lying on their backs staring at the ceiling and with no appetite to eat. Can't see much or hear much. Should keeping an ageing person alive cost so much?

job enough but money still not enough

Today we hear another impressive figure on job creation. 81,500 jobs created. And the unemployment rate of 3.8 per cent is nothing to worry about. We are near full employment. But why are the lower segment of the population still feeling so dissatisfied and unhappy? Obviously employment is not the only thing to look at. It is the overall impoverishment of the people. Asset value dwindling, some still holding onto negative assets, and the depreciating value of the money vis a vis what it can buy, domestically. We are poorer for the same income when everything is going up. And that is a fact for those with household income of less than $3,000. $2,000 is a drudgery, bearly enough. There is a need to contain the runaway inflation and cost of living to make life easier for the lower income group. To them it is still money not enough. Not that they have no money.