The worst of 2007

I reckon the following are the worst political decisions of 2007, though not necessary in order of merit. 1. Compulsory Annuity Scheme 2. Mean Testing 3. 21% salary increment 4. Taxi fare hike 5. 6 million population 6. Allowing rising cost to run wild Can any of you think of anything worst than the above? Or anyone disagree?

Replenishing the dying stock of good genes

This may not have been spoken as an official policy statement, but this is what I think could be the key reason. As our stock of good genes are dying away quickly, and we are unable to find the same quality of equally good genes, despite paying so much, it is necessary to import from abroad. In a generation or two, we will have all the great genes we need, from sweepers, cleaners, bus drivers to doctors and researchers. Then we can claim to the world that we have the best sweepers, cleaners etc or best workers of the world. And this could be the reason to pay them world class salaries as well. At the rate it is going, the workers, or those at the bottom 20% could be getting $3k-$5k pm or a household income of $10k. And they will be considered the lower income group. The average Singaporeans, with world class genes, will be getting $20k-$30k pm. This will be the future for a city of excellence in the future. Dunno what will be the cost of living then.

The Mean Dilemma

While everyone is being worked up in this mean thing, wanting to be mean but trying to be not so mean, have we forgotten about the basic problem, the unstoppable rising medical cost? Or is Mean Testing a solution to solving this problem or just a diversion, that reducing cost can quietly be swept under the carpet? I am getting some inspiration from President Suharto on how to make more money to subsidise those who are trying to stretch their dollar and savings to last longer. The rich, like Suharto, will not be embarrassed by Mean Testing. They can afford to pay. And he is paying, I hope so, for every day he spent being hooked up to all the machines and surrounded by an entourage of expensive medical professionals. This is a very lucrative market to tap on. Hospitals, private and public, should allocate more resources to provide such services and support to the very rich and charge them accordingly, and no subsidies of course. They don't mind being hooked on to machines and enjoy the publicity. Though this is what advanced medical science can do to hold on to a dying piece of living tissue, it is important for those who can afford to live this way. There are plenty of money to be made. Market the business aggressively so that the very rich can pay for the not so rich or the poorer people. It is time to restructure the whole medical profession and medical business to pursue more profits with a good reason and not continuously lumping the cost to those who can barely afford to pay. With the fear of being sick and admitted to hospitals growing by the days, no one can blame those with a few dollars in their savings, including those in Medisave, to want to hold on to them for as long as possible. No one should harbour the thought of emptying the people's life savings for their own medical care as quickly as possible under whatever schemes. For whatever there is in the Medisave may not be enough.

Notable quote II by LKY

'This way you are not passing the burden (of caring for the elderly) to the next generation.' Lee Kuan Yew LKY 'defended Singapore's CPF scheme and argued against pensions for the elderly, which have to be supported by tax revenues...The CPF scheme, he said, helps Singapore to remain competitive, saying it aims for "minimum tax rates and maximum self sufficiency".' The above was part of his conversation at the Silver Industry Conference Exhibition and is reported in the ST.

Notable quote by LKY

'If we are not able to think for ourselves and decide if what they tell us is either good or useful or not so good, we wouldn't be here.' Lee Kuan Yew What we read in the news, especially the news produced by reputable msm, including Reuters, BBC, NYT or ST or whatever, read it carefully, understand them, and understand what are their agendas. Then decide whether it is to our interests or against our interests. For they are all views, not necessarily right or wrong, but views to influence and manage your way of thinking and seeing things. LKY's comment above was in response to a question on free speech in Singapore. He pointed to Taiwan, the Philippines, South Korea as countries with free press but not necessary free of corruption. The 'media itself is corrupted.' Before anyone thinks that in order to be free of corruption, we cannot have a free media. Both are not exclusive. Why can't we have freer media and corruption free? This is the same as asking why can't we pay our politicians decently, and not excessively, and remain corruption free. Ok, I admit that what is decent or excessive is relative. But we all have this gut feel when things are excessive or not right.