Why my coke is 80c?

Ah Pek was seen arguing with the mama shop why his can of coke is now 80c and not 60c. Ah Pek said he read in the paper that the prices of common household goods increased only by 4.3%. Now his coke of 60c increased by 20c or 33%! How can? Profiteering huh!

The Amazing Lifelong Insurance Scheme(TALIS)

It's so amazing. Simply brilliant. Foreign workers used to return to their villages to tell stories about paradise, where people can walk to a machine in the wall to take money when they need money. Now the citizens of paradise will have a $600 payout for life. No govt in the world can promise their citizens such a scheme. If we sell this scheme to the world, we can have 20 million people queueing to be citizens. Just a few questions. Who is paying who? A life time payout, or forever? How many more years can one live after 80, 85, or 90? One good thing coming from the review is that it is now not compulsory. The people will have 12 flexible schemes to choose from. For those who are going to live forever, this is like paradise. I am going there to prepare mansions for all of you who believe in me.

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.