The changing demographic pattern

'Foreign Affairs Adviser Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury yesterday said Singapore is a good destination for skilled and semi-skilled Bangladeshi workers.' I can add a few more. Singapore is a great place for Filipino, Indonesian, Indian and Sri Lankan maids. Singapore is also a good place for Chinese, Indian, Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi workers. With Singapore becoming a haven for these third world low talent and low skill workers, the demographic pattern will soon change. I can simply divide them into two groups, the haves and the have nots. The haves will be the elite and the real foreign talents, driving around in their limousines and residing in exclusive suburbs or in the clouds. At the lower and down to earth end will be the hardlanders and the MRT squeeze with our third world workers. After travelling in MRTs for a while, the ingenuity of nature soon makes one less sensitive to odour and human heat and sweat. Well, got to get use to life in the lower strata of society, taking public transport to work. Mind you, this is world class transport at its best. Imagine if the population continues to increase or when the aircon breaks down. Life in paradise or more accurately living in a third world haven is really great, especially if one comes from the rundown and properly kept public facilities of developing countries. Everything here is like heaven indeed.

Rule less, do more

The MOE has this brilliant concept of teaching less and learning more. Can this same concept be applied in the current state of our national development? After 40 years of rapid growth in all areas, except the political system, are our people matured enough, educated enough, to be ruled less and be freer to do and live a freer life on their own? Or are we still in the same state of enlightenment as the Middle Ages when the people were still made up of the ignorant masses and needed to be ruled with an iron fist? Are we progressing or regressing? Looking at some young upstarts who have never been concerned about the people's well being except how to make their first million and telling the people about life and nation is quite creepy. As we continue to brag about how advanced and progressive we are, how knowledgeable and wealthy we are in the pocket and in the head, which I believe is true relatively to our past, it is time to change the mindset of the rulers to lead instead of to rule. Or what we are experiencing today is actually an advanced stage of ruling less?

Being led to believe

You were being persuaded to buy something on the belief that it will perform according to some specifications or will provide some satisfaction to you, or will reward you in some ways. A certain expectation is being built into the transaction. And if it is not met, no deal, or there is a breach of the agreement, in this case a downgrading of expectation. This is perhaps what the NTUC Income bonus issue is all about. Tan Kin Lian said, 'please keep to your promise.' Is such an expectation unreasonable? Why should the buyer be made to accept terms that make them worst off because the seller has to juggle and improve his solvency problem? The key question here is whether the existing buyers are better off. Would it be too much to ask for or to demand that the seller keep to its promise to existing buyers and only apply the new terms to new buyers? I thought this is the only decent and ethical thing to do. Apparently this shifting of the goal posts and applying it to existing buyers and incumbents is the accepted way of doing business here. The changing of the terms of CPF contributions affecting the date of withdrawal, the interest rate, and the withholding of the money saved are similar to changing the terms in an agreement. The affected people keep quiet, so they are presumed to have given their consent or approval to the changes. The decision maker will say, see, no protest, so the people must be happy. The people who made the changes think that it is ethically and morally right to do so, probably on the declared objective that 'it is for the good of the buyers or incumbents.' What kind of logic is this? There are many brilliant people here but none of the brilliant people has questioned these changes. Would Ngiam Tong Dow say something on this since he is on a speak your mind spree? Maybe all the super talents share the same logic, that it is alright. Another Uniquely Singapore feature?

Equal misery

Rajasegaran Ramasamy was quoted in the ST Forum complaining that teachers are getting free parking while in other ministries and stats boards the officers have to pay for parking. To him this is grossly unfair. He wanted the system to be fair to all and teachers be made to pay for their parking in school compounds. His most convincing argument is that 'the govt is losing a potential revenue of some $1.625 mil monthly.' Now who can argue against such a big sum of money logic. I am sure the bean counters will be smiling in glee with so much money to collect. Sorry teachers, your little privilege is habis. I will be glad to support Rajasegaran if he were to proposed that all the ministries and stats boards should follow the example of the MOE and allow their staff to park free. I forgot, Mindef officers are allowed to park free also. Will I be seeing paid parking lots in military camps and carpark wardens patrolling inside them as well? Rajasegaran's suggestion is a 'bee tang' idea and should be implemented and he be awarded a gold medal for public administration. The best suggestion I have heard from a citizen so far.

Tan Kin Lian speaking his mind

Tan Kin Lian has developed a new speak your mind culture in cyberspace. He spoke about things he knows best, insurance. And he went one step further by taking on NTUC Income on the changes in the payout of insurance bonus. He was unhappy when the payout formula was changed and policy holders will be getting less than when he was in charge. He ran a protest in cyberspace and would have taken the issue to the NTUC Income AGM. Fireworks were expected. Then, pssssst.... He was invited for tea by Lim Boon Heng and Matthias Yao. As reported in the ST, 'Mr Lim told him that his committee would ensure that Income's policyholders would continue to get good value, while Mr Yao said the restructure was designed to improve Income's solvency position.' Wow, if the payout formula was not changed, Income's solvency will not improve. Matthias added, 'those who terminate their policies this year would not be in any worse off position compared with the previous bonus structure.' What about those who did not terminate their policies this year? Should they all scramble to terminate their policies so that they will not be worst off? Anyway, 'Chairman Ng Kee Choe called the restructure a "very carefully considered decision" and one in the best interests of policyholders.' Was the old bonus structure carefully considered?