Professionals to self regulate

Boon Wan has stepped in to the new buzz and decided that it is too much work for the ministry to regulate aesthetic medicine. It is now left to the professionals to regulate themselves. After the taxi bus implementation when the users rose in arms against the new regulations LTA also responded to modify the well thought out plans. It took quite a while though, and after many complaints before LTA relented to change. Kudos must be given to the MOH for changing their interventionist position to one of self regulation within a week of the announcement. And the professionals better to a good job to regulate themselves and not allow money to get in the way at the expense of professional ethics and the interest of the customers.

Time to go after the fakes

Fakes are increasingly common in this cosmopolitan city. We are being inundated with fake degrees, fake institutions of higher learnings and also fake physical attributes. If we are not going to accept fake qualifications, shall we also reject fake physical assets? Aesthetic medicine is now the fad. Anyone standing in front of you may be a fake, at least in some parts. If we allow the faking of one's look, why not the faking of one's qualifications? Even the food that we eat are fakes, genetically modified. And whether they will harm us in the future is yet to be proven. Should then be banned too? There are calls in this direction. Shall we accept or reject the fakes? : )

Buying foreign banks a bad deal?

With US$22 b spent on the buying spree for troubled international banks, and with crumbling values as more misdeeds or debt were revealed, many were chuckling in glee. See, supertalents messing up our reserves. Many are waiting at the sidelines hoping for such opportunities to take potshots at the highly paid and highly acclaimed supertalents in our midst. Are the criticisms justified? I was in favour of these acquisitions from the start. And I am still hopefully optimistic that these were good decisions and will bring in good returns in the long run. It is only in difficult times like this that these top banks have to go down on their knees to beg for fund injections. Without such a window of opportunities, we can wait till the cow comes home for them to divest their interests to a sovereign wealth fund like ours. The recent developments seeing these risky investments plunged in their values in the billions surely will bring up the questions of due diligence. Did we go in with eyes wide open or eyes wide shut? Were we told of the full story before parting with our billions? And did we protect ourselves from such an eventuality, or did we know how much risk we are exposing ourselves to? If the decision makers went in fully aware of the possible pitfalls and consequences, and the decision made based on acceptable calculated risk, then the public should not take issues with the short term fluctuation. We only need to fear if we are conned into parting with our billions by the banks that did not fully disclose their full liabilities and debt to us. And if that be the case, hopefully legal actions can recover some of the damages. And rightfully too, the decision makers need to be kicked in the arse. When all due diligence have been taken, and the losses were due to developments that were difficult to foresee, then the public should not be too harsh on their criticisms. We can now hope that everything is within our control and expectations, and in the long run we shall reap the fruits of risk taking and opportunism.

Singapore news will never be the same again

With Cyberspace gaining more readership and acceptance, news reporting and opinions on Singapore news will never be the same again. We are now seeing a community of blogs and forums growing and contributing to the local scene, providing alternative news in increasing regularity. Thanks for forum/blogs like Littlespeck, Mr Brown, Mr Wang, Mollymeek, TheOneLineCitizen, Yawningbread, and even Talkingcock, and many others, there is now a platform for readers hungry for what is not spoken or cannot be spoken in the msm. And don't forget the little contribution from MySingaporeNews and Redbeanforum as well. With everyday passing, cyberspace can only grow in stature and in gaining a bigger share of the readership.

Welfare for the rich

Why are we bitching over a few hundred dollars for the poor when we readily spend millions for the rich who don't need them? Got such things? Just open your eyes and see through the veneer of respectability. Oh, as for the poor, we need to be very careful. Giving them too much welfare will erode our strong work ethics and personal responsibility. 'Sui ah.' Very well said. In reality, our system is paying millions to redundant old hags to keep them employed by creating many redundant positions and with handsome payouts. Many of these old hags have outlived their usefulness and are either working at half capacity or not at all. But with their millions in wealth that can let them live comfortably for another century, they continue to enjoy welfare in the millions. I read this statement from Ravi Menon, Second Permanent Secretary in Trade and Industry when he spoke at the Asia Research Institute Seminar, 'What does it mean for a person's sense of self worth and dignity? What does it mean for the work ethics? What does it mean for the family?' I have touched on the first question in my post yesterday. For a person who is receiving more than he is worth or contributing to an organisation, and he unashamingly stretches out his arms to collect the gold, what does it say to his self worth and dignity? And if one does not even work and proudly receives his gold, what does it say of his work ethics? As for his family, he might just tell them he deserves the gold. Or he might just say, with a wide smile, 'Take it and enjoy it while it lasts.' If a small amount of these money were to be given to the poor, it will make them feel very rich. But giving to the rich, it will only make them richer and regard the extra money as peanuts. And some will even complain that it is too little, and not having to work for it. But as a kind of welfare benefit, work for it is not necessary.