All the hoo hah for nothing

The only thing good about the annuity proposal is to get people thinking and talking, creating a kind of buzz, a distraction, but all for nothing, actually. It will only affect a very small group of people. Maybe 1 in 10 will live to that age. May 2 in 10 of this group may need some charity. It is a scheme where many do not need. And those who need cannot afford it. It is like pushing insurance policies to the beggars in the street. What these people, who surely can do with annuity insurance, most probably have no money to pay for it. And they will try very hard to get their hands to the $3000 or $300 in their CPF or will cry for it. To them this is all they got and these few hundred bucks can do a lot of wonders to push back their appalling misery for a few days later. To those who have millions in their savings, they can pooh pooh or scoff at these pathetic beans. Ok, they have a good life. But do not do more to hurt the downtrodden. Forcing them to cough out their few dollars is more like squeezing blood out of them. It is painful. With such goodness being shafted down the throat of these desperate people, it is no difference from stuffing food down the throat of Peking ducks. No regard for their pain and suffering in the name of doing them good. Let those who think it is good for them, and they must have it, pay for it voluntarily. Then we will really see how many believe they will live pass 85 and will be desperate enough to want to depend on the pathetic $300 pm.

Finding a new way to engage the govt

Black September or Brown September, it was over without raising any eyebrow. There was no protest in the form that is recognisable. Nonetheless, it is talking back on something that the people, or some of the people, are disgruntled about. It is not about toppling the govt or anti establishment. But did it have any impact, or was it a non event, meaningless, not noticeable and forgettable? Then there is the online petition. Also a rather non event as it caters only to a small group of netizens. What else can the Singaporeans do other than writing to the media, in the net or writing to Reach, only to get an explanation that this is all done for his own good? Maybe this Black September thing, and the online petition, are the best way to say no, to say they disagree, not so much as a protest, and not threatening anyone or peace on the street. And maybe the govt too think this is a good way for the people to register their views without having to lay on them with the full weight of the law. It is a civilised way by a civilised people to make their point, in a polite way, as the issues are not life threatening or deserving of a violent protest. If these two ways are enough to make the govt listen and tweak whatever they are doing, we may see more in the future, of Singaporeans in black, heads down, mourning over a policy or decision that they don't agree. It is good for the people and good for the govt. The people saying it quietly, respectfully, not upsetting anyone and the govt listening quietly and nodding its head. And no opportunity for press sensationalisation.

The parents are responsible

I read in some quarters advocating that the parents of children who did the illegal downloading be held responsible for their behaviour. So would parents also be punished if their children steal, vandalised, take drugs, even murder? The parents cannot run away from sharing some of the blame. But to punish them for the misdeeds of their children? Shall we blame our education system or society too? Or shall we blame God and punish him for creating all the flawed humans? Where does the buck stop? It is so easy to pass the buck to the parents. Is this the way it should be?

Annuity, A rethink?

Not all needs to contribute to the annuity scheme. Those that could not live long enough. And those who already bought annuity insurance. What about those with pension schemes? I will proposed that all the ministers and mps and civil servants under the pension scheme be exempted from the annuity scheme. What for if they are already provided for in their old age? The same principle shall apply to all Singaporeans. Singaporeans who have provided for their old age, who have enough savings and assets, must be exempted. Otherwise it is another wasteful and foolish thing to add on the annuity thing. I will support a Means Testing to exempt people from the scheme. People who can prove that they have income or assets that are worth more than what the annuity scheme can provide for shall be exempted from it. And this Means Testing shall be extended to the minimum sum and Medisave. People who have more than $120k in assets that can be pledged to the CPF shall be exempted from the minimum sum. People who have medical insurance shall be exempted from Medisave. And no need to declare all the assets. Just enough to cover the minimum. A billionaire needs only to prove that he has more than the $120k and Medisave and annuity equivalent will do. No need to strip clean. And people who have children who have pledged to look after them shall be exempted. This will encourage the young to commit to look after their parents. There is no need to pah tau, pau buay and pau kah liow.

How to play with statistics?

Singapore residents by Age Group: 0-4 yr 196 K 5-9 yr 239.3 K 10-14 yr 263.6 K 15-19 yr 238.1 K 20-24 yr 222.4 K 25-29 yr 253.7 K 30-34 yr 303.6 K 35-39 yr 310.1 K 40-44 yr 331.2 K 45-49 yr 314.5 K 50-54 yr 260.5 K 55-59 yr 202.8 K 60-64 yr 120.8 K 65-69 yr 104.3 K 70-74 yr 79.7 K 75-79 yr 56.2 K 80-84 yr 30.9 K 85 & abv 25.8 K What do these figures tell us? There are many ways to read statistics. One can read it funnily, creatively, seriously, or to read it just to serve one's own perspective and declare, 'Eureka! the statistics support my case.' Look at the above statistics once again. Look at the age group from 30-49 and you will find the numbers are fairly constant. This means that most of them are well and kicking. Not dying. When they hit 50-54, there is an immediate drop of 54K. Looks like they started to die from 50 onwards. 55-59, another drop of 58K. And 60-64 another big drop of 78K. The bulk of the people dying are within the age group of 50-64. A decrease of 190K. Then comes a lull. The 65-69 groups seems to die lesser, only 16K. This is the safest group. The next big drop is the 70-74 group. Though the number is only 25K, it is actually 25% or 1 in 4 will die in this group. By then the survivors have dropped to only 79.7K. And the dying gets smaller but percentage wise gets bigger. Once hitting 75-79, 1 in 2 will die. The above 85 figure is a distortion as it includes everyone above that age. Oh, the babyboomers should be in the 55-64 groups. But their numbers indicate that many have already died. Isn't this a nice way of looking at numbers?