Long Life Insurance

Same assumptions and reasoning. People will live longer, no money, go to meet the people session to ask for help. How many of these people really need help at the end of the day? Why don't we have another set of assumptions. Some people will live longer. They will make provisions for themselves personally or through their families. They don't need govt's charity. Is this group more than those in the former group? Assuming that 70% live till 65. So 70% will may need the Long Life Insurance. Assuming 50% of those reaching 65 will live till 85. So half of the 70% or 35% may need the insurance. Take this at the half way mark this will give 17.5% who would need the insurance. The assuming that half of this 17.5% have been responsible and have savings, then only 8.75% will need the insurance. And assuming that half of this have families to take care of them, the final figure will be 4.375% that really need the insurance. For the sake of 4.375% who for some reasons cannot look after themselves in old age, 100% of the population will have to be forced to buy Long Life Insurance. Actually this figure is a bit inflated as many who cannot afford to live that long would have die naturally. Those who can afford to live to the ripe old age would have some means to do so. What the Govt can do is to issue a Certificate of Proof of voluntary rejection of the Long Life Insurance and allow people to opt out of the scheme. And at the end of the day, if these people come for handouts, just give them the $290 pm and nothing more. The COP will make them ineligible for more govt handouts. I think this will be fair. The people will take responsibility for their own actions and life. And the govt would not be blamed if they mess up their lives. And given the benevolent Long Life Insurance Scheme in place, not many will be left in the lurch. Is it really so hard to let people have the option to opt out? Why so adamant about making it compulsory? Let people be responsible for their own actions. Trust the people. If the govt cannot trust the people, why should the people trust the govt?

What makes a great PM

I was reading P N Balji's comment on the barriers of age, gender and race. And he mentioned that LKY was a PM at 35, Chok Tong at 49 and Hsien Loong at 52. For this, he suggested that the future PM could be older, maybe in the 60s. This is natural as our population, including the supertalents will live to 100. And if they are not fruitfully employed after 60s, then they will be rotting somewhere and will be a waste of their talents. But it would be better if we can find younger PM, say below 35. From the above statistics it is proven that the younger the PM, the better will be his contribution and achievements. And this is only logical. For if a young man in his 30s can shine and be seen as good enough to be a PM, then he is truly an exceptional talent. And he will grow in his job. An older PM will just slow down with time and age. So, an older PM is not the best choice.

It would be more palatable

If only public policies were made not with the people's saving but with public funds from taxes or revenue. It would be better if the urge to provide world class services comes with a public announcement that it will cost so much from the users' pockets. It would be better to provide world class services but at the same time offer those who cannot afford it an alternative service to pay for a cheaper service, and without mean testing of course.

Notable quotes - Lionel De Souza

'The relevant authorities should take the necessary action to criminalise anti competitive practices before they become prevalent.' Lionel De Souza. Before they become prevalent? I support Lionel's call, but wake up, it is prevalent and blatantly practised in many industries by supposely professional and respectable top management staff. They are rightfully called criminals and need to be punished for not only the crime but immoral and unethical practices. It is a poor reflection of the high moral standards that these individuals eschewed and blared out loudly in public speeches. It is hypocrisy in the highest level of corporate management.

New NKF - Spartan but safe

This is the headline in Today on the new NKF. The new CEO, Eunice Tay, has gone in for about a year and has changed the image from a lavish setup of a business and profit oriented organisation to one that looks more like a charity organisation, emphasing on the well being of its patients and on thrift. She cut, reduce, reuse and recycle, and even manages to remove more than 10 vehicles and freeing 5 floors of its HQ office space for rentals! How could so much space and vehicles be made available or not made available by the previous regime? The surprising result is that patients that were unmotivated, depressed and suicidal are now happier. And so were staff morale and a lower turnover. All the little empires and bickering of office politics were gone, including the lavish office of the CEO and the golden tap. I think the new NKF will gradually regain the confidence and trust of its donors, supporters and patients. Other public service organisations could learn a thing or two from the concept of 'Spartan but safe' and discard the golden tap philosophy to benefit the customers they are serving. No need to have first class or world class dreams if the customers cannot afford them.