learning a little thing from the world bank

The World Bank wants the right to be criticised. What silliness! What an oddity of circumstance, for a powerful, respectable institution to lobby for permission to be granted to civil society organisations to have 'more opportunity to express their views', in a manner that will most certainly be non-complimentary to the World Bank. I copied the above from littlespeck.com. article was from blogger i-speak. When I heard that the World Bank was requesting the Singapore govt for permission to allow international demonstrators to demonstrate during the IMF meeting here next month, I found it rather strange. Why would the World Bank want to do that? It would only make life more difficult for them. Or is it a wayang that the World Bank is choreographing? It seems that the World Bank is serious in wanting to hear dissenting voices and views. The philosophy is simple. Criticisms and alternative views are healthy and provide another perspective which the World Bank can consider and may even help it to improve on what it is doing. It does not adopt the high and mighty 'I know it all attitude' and no one else is smarter than them and all dissenting views are unworthy or will undermine what they are doing. This is enlightenment of a very high level. And not only that the World Bank believes in it but also want to put it into practice. Other wise they will become a model of hypocrisy. Can Singapore learn a trick or two from the World Bank? Or we know it best. Nothing do learn anymore. We are the best.

is this the best formula?

There are many formulae to tax and pay for the runnng of a country. The current formula that is preferred is this. 1. Collect taxes 2. Use taxes to provide services 3. Sell services to taxpayers ie privatisation 4. Profits from privatisation for what? Benefit who? 5. Services continue to make profits from taxpayers (again profit to benefit who?) 6. Taxpayers continue to pay taxes 7. Huge surpluses 8. Lower income squeeze by profit motive of services 9. Help lower income with some handouts An alternative model 1. Collect taxes 2. Use taxes to provide services 3. Operate services to benefit taxpayers at minimum profit 4. Taxpayers continue to pay taxes 5. Lower surpluses 6. Lower income not squeeze by profit making services 7. No need to give handouts to lower income(in reality this is relative) Which is a better model? Is running at a profit more important than the general welfare and well being of the people?

my double in my blog!

yes, i have a double here, using my nick redbean and writing in the same style as me, even not using capital letters. i am very flattered by the imitation. he has done his homework well and his posts can easily be mistaken as mine. the only thing he could not do is to change the colour of his name into blue. also he does not have the underline beneath his nick. so it is quite easy to tell the difference until one day when he figures out a way to do it. then it will be difficult. i too can't tell the difference in the way he posts from mine. nice job redbean from the real redbean. you learn well.

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.