Crazy people and their crazy ideas

Singaporeans who have the privilege of living to the ripe old age of 70 and above should be preparing themselves to depart from this physical world. Only those who have a lot of unspent money should think of how to spend those money, and one prerequisite is to keep themselves alive at all cost. And for Singaporeans who think they are lucky to live till 80 and above, enjoy everyday they can. Don't ever think of wasting your money by putting them into any form of life or medical insurance. The end is near. Whoever is asking people to keep buying medical insurance at that kind of age needs to have his sanity check. But of course, if there is plenty of money, go for it, and try to live till 100. For those who need the money to live, live and be happy for the day. Everyday is a bonus.

What's wrong with subsidies?

"I read the newspapers and the simplest thing is to write and say, subsidise. Rice, oil, bus fares, even putting seat belts on school buses. That is the surest way to go downhill” LKY I don't agree with his views on this. Subsidies or handouts are different forms of welfare. If one is wrong, both are wrong. Anyway, I don't think Singaporeans are asking for subsidies to the extent of giveaways at below cost. Market subsidies is one thing that can be cut for essential items. Profit in essential goods at times like this can also be cut as long as the importers are not losing money. Making profits on such items at such times leave much to be desired. Then there is the huge petrol tax that can be lowered without affecting govt revenue when petrol price was much lower. In fact it should be cut to lower business cost. Nobody is expecting a blanket subsidy for everything. Fine tuning a little here and there to help the people is what the people expect of the govt.

China got money!

China got plenty of money, $2 trillion in reserve. With so much money, China does not need any donation or help for the Sichuan victims. Is this what My Paper is trying to say in its front page article? I must agree. People with a lot of money should not be given more money. People who are earning millions should stop whining and demanding for more. Why? Simple, they got plenty of money. Anyway, just to ease my conscience, and to do a little for humanity, I still a few dollars to the Sichuan Earthquake victims. Never mind if China has a lot of money. It is personal. You do what you think is right or what that makes you feel good. You want to give, just give. Don't want to give, don't give. What about those who got millions and still think they need more? Does My Paper has a view on that? Never mind lah, they need it, and if they are able to take it, let them take lah. It would be nice if the msm take up such an issue for discussion. And if a rich country like paradise got hit by a natural disaster, I think many people will also ask the same question. Should they help paradise? Paradise got money what?

Legislation for whistle blowers

Singapore is like a Third World nation when it comes to the protection of employees' rights. Corporate Governance advocate Mak Yuen Teen. There is a serious need for legislation to protect whistle blowers if Singapore is serious about reducing fraud in the workplace. I think this is asking too much. As the culprits of abuses in corporation are mainly inflicted by the management. Why would they want to push for such legislation? In my experience, we have perhaps one of the most disciplined and docile workforce. And management often were very high handed and got away with it because no one dare to scream. Legislation is absolutely necessary to prevent further abuses in the corporate world.

Is there a gag order?

Or is there a unwritten order not to engage bloggers in cyberspace? Or is it a crime or a sin to be seen in cyberspace for official or professional journalists and reporters? More likely it is a kind of self censorship. Without the official nod, without anyone saying it is ok, better stay clear of cyberspace. I have on many occasions quoted journalists and reporters on their articles and views, with their names clearly written. I was hoping that they would come by and add in their views or to offer some alternative views. It was always silence. I have yet to see a journalist or reporter engaging the bloggers in cyberspace. For that matter, people in authority. Are they afraid that their names will be tarred with feathers? Or are they afraid that their views will not receive the same silent approval, or be attacked and they could not defend by censorship or by not printing the rebuttal? Cyberspace is the most level playing field one can get in a discussion. Everyone is free to post, from king to pauper. But titles are not respected. It is the view that carries the weight. When will official and professional journalists and reporters feel safe and comfortable to write and post freely in cyberspace?