Yes, speak out when necessary

The reply by CCS that the market is better to be regulated by more competition came under attack by readers in Today paper. Two letters, by Angeline Lee and Alvin Hoon, were not satisfied with the reply. They demanded that CCS should take action now against the $5 charge by Nets claiming that there is no competition in the market now. Net is the only provider of this service at the moment. The hike is only acceptable if there are competitors. (My view is that if it is pseudo competition with a few providers it will not make any difference and profiteering will go on at the expense of the consumers. That will be the CASE.) The people are now getting more vocal and would not take crappy answers and reasonings for granted. The people are learning to speak up. They are not going to let unfair actions be simply explained away. This is the only way to make sure that their rights and interests are not trampled by big organisations and big voices. Let's see if CCS will take some action against Nets. But from the look of things it is already a done deal. Pay up.

I challenge you!

The last time I remembered challenging someone was 40+ years ago. And we ended up in the backlane wrestling each other. The last we heard of the Seng Han Tong challenge to the Workers Party was for the WP to hire only Singaporean workers. And I heard a second challenge was issued to WP for its contractors not to hire foreign workers. This game of challenge is getting interesting. Would the WP start to challenge the govt to allow foreign talents to stand for election? Or would the challenge be on the reduction of petrol prices, reduction of hospital bills? Or would the WP make a challenge that if they become Ministers they will only ask half the present pay? The possibilities of throwing challenges at one another is enormous. And why not when there is no consequences.

High price ok provided...

Chin Yen Yen, Dep Director, Corporate Communications Competition Commission said, '...under the Competition Act in Singapore, a high price set by a dominant player does not in itself imply an abuse of dominance.' This is only true if certain conditions exist. She added that there must be 'competition among different suppliers in a free market environment. In many instances we actually have a near monopoly situation here and a free market environment is not present. Public transport quickly comes to one's mind. TV licence, news provider, privatised public services etc etc. The public needs to be protected from such monopolistic environment or in industries where cartel like practices are possible.

40% of Singaporean households will be millionaires

By 2017, according to a report, that is. Now isn't that good news? If we are looking at asset worth, we can make 50% of Singaporeans millionaires tomorrow by simply raising the prices of public housing. And Singaporeans will be boasting to one another that they are now millionaires. But every Thursday night they will queue up to see their MPs asking for help as they have no money to buy rice, pay instalments or medical bills. What is important really is the purchasing power. In the 60s, one needed not be a millionaire to buy a semi D at $40k. Today, a millionaire cannot even afford to buy a semi D, or come 2017, can't even buy a 5 room HDB flat. So shall we celebrate this great news to be millionaires in 2017?

Is LKY having a change of heart?

Quote: Lee(LKY) said the Chinese should learn to take the western media on the western media's terms. If protesters get into the Olympic stadiums waving 'Free Tibet' banners, China should shrug it off, he said. If I were them I would expect that and say 'So what?' Lee added. Unfortunately they are still in the old set way they react, but they're learning. Unquote Would LKY apply this advice to the Chinese govt to our local context? When there are demonstrators, would the authorities shrug it off and say, 'So what?' Now if this is going to be the things to come, it would be interesting.