Moral and Ethical conduct of people in high office

Whether a person is in the public service or in private organisations, there is this unwritten rule of maintaining a high moral and ethical standard of conduct in the performance of his duty/business. These include making profits and treating their consumers/clients and staff fairly and equitably. Money or profits made through unethical means are ill gotten gains and are to be despised. As we cheered our great monetary wealth, if we allow all the immoral and unethical conduct to go unpunished, it will destroy our social moral fibre and be the cause of our ruin and infamy down the road. Tan Kin Lian said that he did not know that Income made 7.8% pa yield over the last 10 years. And he was the CEO for some part of this duration I think. I am not sure how long he has left Income. What's happening? And Income was paying out bonuses to its policyholders that 'were lower than orignally projected, due to the cut in bonus in some of the previous years.' He 'felt that it is more important for these past bonus cuts to be restored, subject to financial solvency.' I think anyone reading his article published in Today would be able to see the kind of problems that are surfacing. And it all boils down to transparency, ethics and moral conduct of how corporations are being run and how consumers are getting an unfair share of what they are deserving. Maybe Income has quoted wrong numbers.

Help is everywhere

I say it again, Singaporeans are so fortunate. We do not need a typhoon or devastating earthquake to get help. And the help Singaporeans are getting are not small change. Just imagine that Myanmar and China both got US$200k from us officially. And compare these to what the govt and NGOs are giving back to the people to help them. The govt is giving back in the billions to the people. Even CDAC and Sinda gave in hundreds of millions to help the people. CADC gave '$600k last year and expects to provide $250k more to needy families and students.' This amount alone is more than what we gave to Myanmar and China. Aren't we lucky, when help is everywhere. What I am puzzled is that why is it that Singaporeans need so much help? Aren't they going to suffer from a clutch mentality? Aren't these help going to rob away their drive to work hard and be self sufficient? I think we are giving away too much money to help Singaporeans. No wonder they are now not able to compete with foreigners.

Malaysian journalists and bloggers joined hands

They are coming together to demand for more press freedom. They are not happy to see Malaysia falling behind in media freedom. Now would that make any difference? I think they ranked much higher in press freedom than our 146th position, or is it 157th? Does it matter when economic well being is the better criteria to judge the well being of a people? We may be ranking below everyone, but we are rich and prosperous, we have everything other poorer countries are envious off, except, a little less press freedom. But since there are no protest, it means that Singaporeans are happy with our position. We don't need the press freedom that will lead to trouble and riotings in the streets. We don't even need street protests. I hope our msm will rise up to the occasion and propound on our virtues of being 146th or 157th. We are the best in our own ways. We do not need to follow the standards set by the rest of the world.

The Malaysian political intrigue

What is happening in Malaysian politics today will easily beat West Wing or Yes Minister! There are so many plots and sub plots and juicy news, including conspiracies and counter conspiracies. And there are also enough sex to liven up the stories. Malaysia will have an international hit serial if they could turn it into a mega movie. And the best part of it all, it is real! If no want in Malaysia wish to produce it, Singaporean producers should quickly rush over and grab the story.

Transparency versus behind the scene dealings

PN Balji was not too happy that Tan Kin Lian took the issue with NTUC Income public. To Balji, it is better done behind closed doors. I thought transparency is good. Now that the issue is open and no matter the messenger or the way it is being done, right or wrong must be upheld, and so must be the insterest of the consumers. In this case, Balji's conclusion is that because of the way it was aired in public, the consumers will suffered. He is presuming that all the great leaders will take it personally and will dig in their heels at he expense of the innocent consumers. I believe our leaders are objective and rational people and will rise above personal differences and will put the interest of the consumers first. Let's see if I am right or Balji is right. Will the consumers be better off or at least not be worst off.