Means Testing is back

Means Testing is back People opt for C wards mainly for two reasons. The first is affordability. The second is an age old wisdom called thrift. For those who are hard on their cash flow, looking at the statistics provided in the MSM, probably 50% of the population will be hardup when faced with a huge hospitalisation bill, this is understandable. The other of course is a great virtue, thrift, spending within your means so that one will not become a burden to other people or society. And no one knows how much one really needs to have to be enough. Thus being thrifty is the best guarantor to be self sufficient. Should our official policy frown on people being thrifty and choose to endure the lesser comfort of a C ward than the creature comfort of A and B wards? There is subsidy and so people are deemed to cheat or deprive others from the subsidy. Good reason. I will never be a cheat because I have a million in my saving. Not yet actually. Still waiting for the Toto winning to fill it up. Maybe next week. When there are so many people demanding for C wards, it means that there is a genuine need for such level of services. It is good reasoning to say that we must always level up, upgrade the quality of our services. Who does not want that? Unfortunately, the income of most people are not levelling up. Many have stagnated and going downhill and would make do with lesser quality of services. Insurance and Medisave are not a real alternatives. They suck away the little cash that the lower income people have for other necessities in living. These people have limited income and any amount stased away for medical uses will mean that some thing has to go. And if we let this great quality of medical service and cost to runaway, it will only mean that the lower income earners are going to be poorer overall. It is a zero sum game when every cent counts.

When there is no honour...but MONEY

When there is no honour...but MONEY The public service is all about public service, a service to the public. Or at least that was what it used to be. Throughout history, great people have stood up to serve country and people in the name of honour above all else. Today, in a new world when such values, including honesty, integrity, magnanimity, compassion, or just to make a difference in the lives of less able people, are now as good as outdated. All these have been subsumed by a new motivator called money. I have left out sacrifice from the list as sacrifice is no longer a factor. In our context I cannot see any sacrifice in the real sense of the word. What we are seeing is a new morality, a self serving morality, a morality of greed. We have all turned to become very practical people, and always ask what's in it for me. And more, to have more. Are our ministers suffering from being underpaid? Can $1m a year plus other perks that can or cannot be quantified be called underpaid? Yes and no. No when $1 a year can buy all the niceties in life and with a lot more to spare. I will be the first to support a payrise if a minister cannot afford to buy his $2 million private property after a 5 year term. But yes because other people are getting more. The main reason why there is this urgent call to double the $1 million is simply because relatively they are paid less. There will not be any call for a pay revision at this level if the other top earners are earning less. And with a formula that is built with all the biases to shoot to the sky, the $2 mil or $10 mil will never be enough. The formula will demand that the salary must continue to go up. When we replace honour with money, all our values change. We should not continue to teach our children values that are best described as 'admirable sentiments.' Let's get real. The moral values we are teaching our children in schools are impractical and smack of hypocrisy. They can no longer survive in a new world where self interest and well being comes first. We must not bring them up into a world that is totally different from their textbooks. They will suffer a culture shock when they realise that all the goodness that the teachers are teaching them is but a farce. The real world is not like that. We need to teach them a new set of values that befits the survival of the fittest. And yes, a return to the laws of the jungle.

the dumb and selfless heroes

Reaching out to the needy in the heart of Singapore. This is a heading in the Straits Times by Radha Basu. 'There are around 22,000 vulnerable residents in the heart of Singapore who may need financial help, according to estimates by the Central Singapore Community Development Council.' And island wide there could be hundreds of thousands of them. And we are arguing that $1.2 mil a year is not enough. And the people pounding the ground, doing the sweatings, are volunteers of welfare and grassroot organisations. These are the dumb heroes of the people who work without getting paid. Socially responsible and with a heart to serve the people without asking how much they are going to get for their sacrifice. Maybe they get a pat on the back and be invited to the Istana for a year end party. These are the selfless men that should be the examples for all Singapsoreans to emulate.

The biggest bullshit

The biggest bullshit Ho Kong Loon wrote, 'Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew spoke so plainly and precisely that dissenters to the proposed salary increase for ministers and top civil servants cannot but nod, albeit reluctantly, in assent at the sheer force, simplicity and veracity of his stand.' I can agree that it was spoken plainly, simply, precisely and with sheer force. I can agree that civil servants should be paid well but nor exorbitantly. But for once I find the justification totally unacceptable. We are no longer paying peanuts at the top level. What is enough or not enough is relative. Ho Kong Loon added that Singapore is what it is today...'only if the leadership is focussed, steely minded, possess extraordinary IQ and EQ, and is socially responsible and incorruptible. Good governance is a rare commodity.' Again I agree but with a little exception. Can you use the word 'incorruptible' on anyone who tells you that he will become corrupt if you don't pay him his asking price? An incorruptible man is incorruptible no matter how much you pay him. He may have a stupid principle that tells him that he should not be corrupt. And he lives by it. This is the plain, simple and precise message. Is this the compelling reason why Ho Kong Loon is so convinced? To me, just this point alone is deeply troubling. Only in Singapore can such an argument be used to justify one's own pay rise. Tell that to the American Congress or the British Parliament and see what the elected representatives of the people will have to say. Can anyone see what I am saying? Can anyone understand the underlying assumption of this kind of logic? Do we need to pay so bloody well to attract the best and talented and incorruptible Singaporeans to come forward to serve the country and people? Or maybe I should rephrase this and ask why are all the good and able men shunning the political minefield? Do we have a political system that encourages the best to step forward willingly for altruistic reasons or are we creating a system that is attracting people who are only interested in the money? If people step forward simply because there are a few millions on offer, what kind of men are they? Socially responsible and incorruptible? If we are serious in getting more able people to step forward to serve. we need to re examine why they are not coming forward in the first place. Singapore has many talents. Singapore's success speaks for itself. Singapore's success cannot be attributed to a handful of individuals alone. It goes all the way down. And at the top, people who are able to run the country as well as the current leadership, you can bet there are at least a few thousands of them with such ability, integrity and honesty out there.

George Bush demands for more money or else...

Heard this story in the lift. A FT was telling his peers. It goes like this. George Bush went to congress and threatens to quit if he did not get what he asked for. And he also threatens to go the corrupt way to get it. George was fighting for a noble cause, asking for money to protect his troops in Iraq.