Hong Lim Speakers Corner

There were new calls to revive and promote the Speakers Corner. It is obvious that the corner is dying like the bubble tea shops. It was a flash in the pan excitement. So some people are trying to make this corner a lively place for talking cock again. I believe that the Speakers Corner should be left as it is, as the Symbol of Free Speech that is uniquely Singapore. A speaker's stand should be erected in the park, like the one Stamford Raffles is standing on. And on the stand should be inscribed the history of free speech in Singapore. It can start something like this. Long long ago, freedom of speech was very important in Singapore. And the govt contributed this park for the citizens to express themselves freely. This speaker's stand was also erected to allow the speakers to stand above the crowd to speak. Long queue of speakers took turns to speak to a park packed with spirited Singaporeans. Over the years the people got richer and more contented with their lives and found speaking in the Speakers Corner a waste of time. Slowly they abandoned the park. They have more important things to do, like making more money, than wasting time here. Today, the Speakers Corner is a monument and symbol of the history of freedom of speech given to the people. At the bottom it may include a postscript saying Singaporeans choose to stay at home as transportation cost is too high to get to the Speakers Corner. And on the reverse side of the speaker's stand the whole procedure on application for a permit to speak in the Speakers Corner can also be inscribed. This will make it easy for anyone to know how to go about applying for a permit. The place can then be promoted as a tourist attraction.

Looking for signs of progress?

After so many signs of decline, including the latest spectacle that made us infamous the world over, I am hoping for some signs of progress. Catching Mas Selamat is not one. He must be caught. I am looking at all the great works done by Boon Wan and Eng Hen on providing something for the Singaporeans when the grow old or get seriously ill. The effort is tremendous. The execution poor and the result unpromising. It would be a very different picture if what they have proposed and recommended are explained and offered to the people. Lay everything on the table and tell them, we have done our homework, these are the options available, and everyone feel free to make their own choice. The people are not stupid or stubborn or mad. They will analyse all the options and alternatives and many will make wise decisions for themselves. And they will say thank you to the two gentlemen for telling them the problems in advance and offering them alternative solutions. Their hard work and effort will be much appreciated. And both gentlemen will be seen as good ministers who are toiling for the people. Would they still insist that the people must be compelled to do what they think best and, instead of praise, receive brickbats in return? Why the stubborness to dictate to the people and not to talk to the people and treat the people as reasonable thinking people? Offering the people options and choices is the way forward, the signs of progress of a nation and its people. We have to depart from the ways of old. Those were days when the people were mostly illiterates. We need to believe in the new people of today, that they are capable of making logical choices that are good for themselves.

Questioning the local msm

www.littlespeck.com posted an article by Cherian George questioning a lapse in the reporting of local msm on the Great Escape from Paradise. To Cherian's horror, he discovered that there were no reports or questions asked on how Mas Selamat Kastari escape. In Cherian's opinion, this is something basic that all readers would want to know. He was disappointed of course. But he must understand. Professional journalists and reporters have to be professional and accurate in their reportings. They must gather the data, scrutinise them carefully before putting them on print. This takes time. The bloggers and cyberspace warriors can just point and shoot. So everyone is shooting in all directions. Some hit, some miss. The msm cannot anyhow shoot and miss. Very malu ok. So got to be patient and wait. Maybe when the report from the independent inquiry board comes out, we will have 6 pages of articles on how the escape took place in the msm. In the mean time create your own news and fantasies and enjoy. The internet is one up definitely. The internet is here to stay.

Universities pursuing students

We want you! This is the message going out to all students. The universities are rolling out a full marketing and promotion plan to attract students to their faculties with clever PR and promotion material. I wonder how much it costs to do all these? And the question is, 'Is it necessary?' Are the universities recruiting employees to run a factory or business? Why the aggressive promotion to enlist students? Income? Revenue? Are the universities commercial institutions, running a business? One can expect the private schools to do such things as every student means money to them. For state universities, whose roles are to teach and produce trained graduates, why behaving like MacDonald or Bugger King? The employers need to recruit the best and compete for the best. And there are only 3 of them to choose from. Universities need to do that as well? Why can't the universities just do their job in education and let their products speak for them? They are their own monuments of excellence, together with their alumi. The students should be running to them because they are good. It is another thing to run after students to tell them that they are good. When you have to do that, you have lost. Education shall not fall prey to marketing gimmicks. Education is serious stuff. Education as a business is another animal altogether. They exist to make money. Education and quality of education are incidental. They may even compromise to bring in revenue. Does RI or Hwa Chong need to go chasing for good students? Or are they thinking of doing so?

3 flawed concepts as policies

3 obviously flawed concepts are now national policies. The Longetivity Annuities/CPF Life and Mean Testing both go against the grain of thrift and private properties. They were conceived with your money in mind and to compel the people to spend them against their will. They also go against the principle of letting the people be more self reliance and be responsible for their own lives. Longetivity Annuities, now repacked as CPF Life, are based on the assumptions that people will live to 85 and more and have no money or means to look after themselves. The result is an insurance scheme that only helps those who may not need to be helped and left out those that need to be help. Mean Testing if not properly executed is better not done at all. Everyone, every individual, has his own peculiar problems. It cuts through religious, social and cultural values. You can't tell someone that his $10k income is good enough and his 10 wives and 20 children are his problem. Doing a proper mean testing requires a lot of time and resources. To oversimplify it is a waste of time and effort as all the errors and exceptions will creep in. Is the effort worth it to do a half baked job to catch a few prudent individuals who may have some money but not millions that cannot be spent away? The assumptions that people earning $4k, $5k or $6k, can afford to pay more is grossly flawed. How many people with this kind of income are able to pay a $50k hospital bill? More subsidies are provided in the budget. So? The subsidies to be collected back by the hospitals as income and even profit and the medical fees keep going up. Lack of doctors and overworked doctors! Whose fault? What kind of planning has caused us to reach such a pathetic state? We also have shortage of lawyers. Why? What is the third flawed concept? Medisave. It is a scheme that guarantees one thing. Many people will die without touching the money. Some may use a little and a small group will deplete it. Then people will laugh, 'What is $30K? What's the big deal?' Yes, it is not even near a peanut. But to many, this is a money that is their life fortune. Money that they can use to live a bit more decently and even pampered themselves a little. Alas, they are not going to touch it in their life time. Is it cruel to deprive these hard life buggers from their little nest eggs in the name of 'It is for their own good?' We will not micro manage the people's life. Is this the tooth?