Parameters for retirement CPF

Today we are not dealing with chief clerks that only had a primary education to work out policies and decisions for us. We are paying top dollars for top talents and we must demand for serious and meticulous computations and for the best solutions money can buy. No more straight jacket one solution fits all occasions decision with no regards to how it can adversely affect many. We need to tailor make policies and decisions that are meaningful and appropriate and logical to the diverse population. The present one minimum sum for all and one medisave for all are unacceptable. If the govt still think that these kinds of solutions are good enough, then they don't deserve the million dollar price tag. The $120k minimum sum is too much for many and too little to many. How can this sum be shafted down the throat of all Singaporeans? You don't need a super talent to make this kind of decisions. An average university grad, pay him $3k a month will be able to come up with a better alternative. The parameters to revise and compute the minimum sum and medisave portion should include the following: 1. The income of the individual, which means what he is used to live on, or his lifestyle. It is not easy and simple. That is why the people are paid top dollars. When you get top dollars, you must serve out top dollar decisions. 2. The average life expectancy. Male and female life expectancies are different. Don't simply lump them together. 3. The assets of the individual. 4. The educational level. 5. Occupation. 6. Family support. 7. Health at 55, to determine the medisave quantum. And if someone is already served a notice that he has a limited days or years to go, he should be allowed to take back all his money. 8. There must be several options and variations for the people to choose from. Do not force people to accept simple and unpractical solutions by making them compulsory. This is the 21st century. We not only have super talents, we also have super computers, science and technology to come up with a sophisticated systems that can be tailor made to individuals or at least classes of individuals. Maybe class is a bad term. Called it social or income groups. The policy makers must start cracking their super brains for a super solution for the unthinking masses. The people are waiting, and watching. Any slipshod solutions must be criticised. The people must not allowed slipshod solution to get by without questioning and poking at them. Only then will we get a deserving and sound solution. The people must raise their level of expectation and push the govt to its limits. Only then can we get progress. The unreasonable man changes the world to suit his needs. We can have aircon in the middle of the desert and a heated room in the centre of the arctic. These are unreasonable things that are against nature. Man has conquered nature by being unreasonable.

New laws needed to protect the weak and innocent.

The Odex case is revealing in the sense that the weak can be subject to extortion by the rich and powerful. People can be dragged to court or pay a ransom for the slightest infringement of the law. Then there is this guy who wrote to the press begging that something be done to restrain his neighbours 5 rottweilers from attacking any passerbys. After highlighting the fear and the possibility of a child being tear to pieces by the dogs, he pleaded sheepishly on what recourse he would have from the barking of the dogs. There must be laws to protect the innocents from people who live dangerously and exposed others to potential harm and destruction of lives. No recourse is going to make any difference to a child or an oldie who is badly mauled by ferocious animals. What the hell is happening? Are we waiting for disasters to happen just to make a few idiots happy with their wild animals? Tame? Animals are only tame when they don't attack. You just can't be too sure how the animal minds work and when it is going to be provoked or go berserk. Please, get rid of those beasts. Or at least have a law to cane the owners if their beasts attack anyone. Monetary compensation is useless to the victims. Make caning of the owners mandatory when an attack takes place.

CPF minimum sum should be $300,000

James Chi Han Hsuan in a letter to Today suggested that the minimum sum in the CPF should be raised to $300k. His justification is that he has many friends who have more than $200k in their savings accounts and they are squandering their money buying all kinds of luxury goods. I can't agree more with James. All these rich people with so much money and do not know what to do must be made to save more. I have also many friends who have millions in their bank accounts. I would want to suggest that the minimum sum be raised to $1 mil so that these people cannot squander away their money. 'Pssst, what about me, I don't have any money in my savings account?' Ah Pek asked.

Natural for citizens to criticise, as well as praise Govt.

'It is natural that citizens should criticise the Govt. It is also natural that citizens should praise the Govt for doing good. This is how a healthy relation is established between the individual and the collective.' George Yeo I could have copied the whole article in the Today paper by Nazry Bahrawi. The expression by George, perhaps the most down to earth minister with a halo over his head, shows a different kind of maturity and security in a person. He does not see every criticism as an attack and a need to respond with a sledgehammer. He sees a healthy relationship with the people that may not see eye to eye with the govt in some issues. And he accepts that it is the right of the citizens to criticise if needed be. 'But for a country to work, an active citizenry is crucial.' This is a comment by Nazry in his article.

The Royalties - A new dynamics

Amidst the throes of heightened tension in a country that has lost its direction, when parochialism and kampong politics were elevated to the national stage, a calming voice is emerging from an erstwhile quiet corner. The crown prince of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, a Harvard PHD holder in Political Economy and Govt, is steadily making his voice of reasons heard. The diminshing presence of the Malaysian Royalties, once seen as not contributing much to the development of the country, is emerging from its past shadow. A Harvard PHD, and a rational and sensible approach to nation building, is a far cry from the wild minds of what UMNO now represents. UMNO is no longer the vehicle of modernity and progress, but regression. UMNO is all about money and how to enrich one another by sucking the wealth of the country without any positive contribution. It is about sharing without contributing. A similar position that the royalties were once in. Straits Times has an article on Raja Nazrin Shah and his views of Malaysian politics. It is refreshing, and more impressive to have come from a Malaysia prince. This is the kind of leaders that Malaysia needs, well educated, progressive, confident and insightful. Not the yelling, chest thumping and kris kissing type. Those are kampong politicians, not statesmen. Malaysia needs more of such leaders to be in office to lead the country forward, not backward. As Badawi has said, Malaysia shall not be what the football team is today, regressive, backward and nothing to prove or show except being more bumiputras. Yes the Malaysian football team is a good example of what Malaysia is today. Study the football team carefully to understand why it fails and why Malaysia will also fail.