budget - narrowing income gap

"Income gaps are widening," Second Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said in his budget speech. A "Progress Package" of government handouts last year was weighted in favour of lower-income groups and helped reduce that disparity. The above is probably the gist of what the 2% increase in GST is all about. And with the lower income group getting the chunk of the $4 billion package, indeed the income gap has been narrowed. The lower income group could get a hefty $1000 annually for 4 years against the richer group that may get $200. So income gap has closed by $800! But this would not last long when the next pay rise is announced when the richer group could see tens of thousands of dollars added to their pay package against the $30 or $150 added to the lower income group. That is the reality in life. How to narrow the income gap? Impossible. Cannot be done.

Hota - clash of beliefs and generosity

And next to the letter of Dr Patrick Kee and Dr Wong was a letter by a Mdm Liew Cheng Huan who generously offered all her organs to be removed from her when she dies. We have many such selfless and honourable people around us. And it is good that there should be more of them. What is worrying is that she was questioning the medical staff for not harvesting the rest of the usable organs like the corneas, the heart, the liver etc. She fully empathised with the family of Sim Tee Hua, but wanted all his organs to be removed. The question is that should a person imposed his belief and wills on other people even if the intent is honourable and even lifegiving? Here, Liew Cheng Huan must have believed very strongly that when dead, all the body parts are of no use and could be put to good use in saving other lives. I fully agree with her and share her belief. I have not opted out but am considering a provision that no organs should be harvested unless death is pronounced in an unambiguous state. But shall I imposed my belief on others who do not share my belief? Should anyone in a position of authority, like in this case, decides for the rest of society with no exception when provisions can be made for exceptions? This issue concerns ownership of private properties, individual rights, beliefs, emotions and feelings and the right of the state. The tricky part is the belief and emotions.

Hota - open letter by two doctors

Dr Patrick Kee Chin Wah and Dr Wong Wee Nam wrote an open letter in the ST Forum page appealing to the law makers to amend the provisions of Hota to take into considerations the strong objections of family members which they have foreseen long before the Sim Tee Hua incident. They had appeared in 1986 before a Select Committee to make provisions in case of strong objections but were rejected. And their worst fear that 'the medical profession seem cold and clinical where compassion was needed' is now in the MSM and in cyberspace. And they are making their appeal public this time for obvious reasons. This 'I have the right to decide what is good for you, including keeping or taking your money, and organs' is deeply carved into our mentality. This is done for the good of society and the individual. So this right becomes sacred and legal. It is acceptable to sacrifice the rights of individuals for the greater good. Are we going to wait for the day when a team of medical technicians will be the first to carry out a sample test of all the organs the moment a patient is admitted to the hospital? Would the harvesting of organs become a first priority in hospitals with no regard to the feelings of the living family members? How long would Singaporeans be willing to live with such a state of affair?

new owner to settle debt of ex owner of property

Starhub demands new houseowner to clear debt of ex owner. Lawrence Chong Yong Wah bought a landed property and wanted to subscribe to Starhub's cable TV. He was told to pay more than $2,400 owed by the ex owner before he can subscribe to Starhub's services. The above info was from Lawrence Chong's letter in the ST on 17 Feb 07. Now this is happening in Singapore, where one has to pay for another's debt. I thought only loansharks apply pressure on the neighbours of their debtors.

Is it politics of envy?

Is it politics of envy? Asked Ho Geok Choo in parliament. The same question was posed to Najib Razak who replied, 'No, we do not envy them.' But the eager beaver instinct to jump up and rush off to offer help and assistance could cause our neighbours 'loss of face'. Of course it does. You have been treating your neighbours as useless bums and always waiting for help from this rich little spoilt brat. It is humiliating to say the least. But free money sure want. Give me more, but don't talk about it, or we will not sell you water or sand. There were little talk of assistance from us in the recent flood except from a few small interest groups. It is better to be that way. They are all intelligent people and know best how to look after themselves. Let's not insult them by offering help so readily.