Consumers getting the short end of the stick

In the past, when car prices were astronomical, COEs shooting to the sky, a car buyer who bought his car on the 30th day of a month, say April, will be considered as buying the car on 1st April and his use of the car will expire on 31 March. He thus lost the use of the car by one month, due to administrative convenience. That means a lot of money. This has been rectified today and the COE will expire on the respective days when the car is registered. Today, a forumer complained in the Straits Times that banks are using 360 days as a year to compute interest rate for credit cards instead of 365 days. The net effect is that consumers will have to pay more. Another former complained that the debiting and crediting of a bank transfer of funds are not done on the same day in some banks which again is to the disadvantage of the consumers. Why are the consumers, mostly the small people, always receiving the short end of the stick? Are these ethical business practices? Big corporations should not squeeze for every little advantage they can get from the small consumers. And in the case of 360 versus 365 days, this is unacceptable as there can be no justifiable reasons for doing this.

Russians paying Indon leaders to grab Indosat

It is reported in the media that a Russian tycoon, Mikhail Fridman of the Alfa Group, is paying Indonesian leaders to wrestle control of Temasek owned Indosat from Singapore. And the methods used by Altimo, the company owned by Fridman, other than bribery, or they called it gifts, include a smear campaign to tarnish the reputation of ST Telemedia. Project Indosat, as the covert operation is called and reported in Indonesian media, is denied by everyone who has been named to be involved. It is a public secret that even the top Indonesian leaders are alleged to have known of its existence. If it can be proven, that taking money, or bribes or call it corruption in this case, would Singapore be able to use the newly inked Extradition Treaty to bring a few of them to our courts for a trial?

The other side of Singaporeans

Aaron Ho Chien Kwok lamented the constant pursuit of material wealth as the new obsession of Singaporeans at the expense of spiritual or social wellbeing. Aaron was not quoting the bible or other spiritual wisdom but the simple and plain goodness of living, that there is more than just accumulation of material wealth. And he is not alone. In his article to the Today paper, he was concerned at how such ideas of me first have been reinforced daily in all media by all well meaning people. The acquisition of wealth is a good thing as it brings about a more comfortable and luxurious lifestyle, and freedom from want. But the social, moral and spiritual self are equally important. There must be a balance as we live out our lives. Aaron quoted the age old wisdom of 'What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul.' This is very similar to the temptation of Jesus Christ by the devil. The devil offered Jesus all the wealth and kingdoms. Come to the dark side. But Jesus plainly rejected them for higher moral and spiritual well beings. I love hedonism. But I am careful not to be carried away.

An unusual talent

Rajendren Rajamani, 24, more or less single handedly set up three charity organisations, ie the Children of Singapore Foundation, Children's Lukaemia Foundation, and Club Sunshine Ltd, which was previously known as Kids-In-Distress Foundation Ltd. He is seen as a young and passionate man with a lot of dreams, as described by one of his admirers. In order for a young man to be able to register three charities and get donations in several hundred thousands, he is indeed a talent in his own right and could be a role model for our young. In celebration of enterprising young talent. Oops.

Who is watching god?

Several issues in the Today paper point out to two serious misgivings that are getting quite prevalent within our society. The first is conflict of interests as was pointed out in the case of the three charities that were struck off by the Commissioner of Charities. The second is the problem of the watchdog sleeping or transgressing. Then we will have the problem of who is watching over the watchdog. For the three dubious charities to be struck off after existing for so long and collecting so much money without raising an eyebrow or a red flag speaks very loudly of how far down our society has gone. This is a case of getting immune of abuses when abuses are everywhere and found not objectionable. In fact, as in the case of NKF, it was a model that was trumpeted and celebrated as the best thing to have had happened for the Charity scene. It becomes a blanket cover for all charities with similar practices and to get by without being questioned. Shall the watchdog be whacked? What happens if watchdogs also transgress the principles of good corporate governance? The checks and balance system and ancient wisdom of proper conduct are not there for show, and any violation should raise a red flag no matter how good is the intention or the reputation of the transgressor. Once such fundamental rules and principles can be shoved aside, more things will get through in a matter of time. Are there signs of decline or transgression that we are overlooking or refuse to acknowledge?