Fanatics in Paradise

We were talking about fanatics of human rights, pushing their views to everyone as if their views were the only one acceptable. Everyone must accept what these fanatics say or believe in. We have another kind of fanatics in paradise. They believe that Singaporeans will all live past 80 years old. And they did not stop at that. They did not just push their views and quarrel with people to believe in them. They did what was necessary. For they also believe that if one is to live past 80, then one needs more money to live. And they sincerely believe that all these are tooth and it is good for the people to have a lot of money when they are at their dying years. And they have good reasons too. When you are at that age, you need more money, not for holidays, but to pay big hospital bills. These are very logical. So from July 1, 2008, the sum in Medisave will be increased to $34,500. This is untouchable unless the sickness is serious enough or approved for payment from this saving. Never mind if one already have Medishield or private medical insurance. The important thing is to have this sum of money in Medisave. Safely kept there for you. Then also, the Minimum Sum in the CPF will be increased to $106,000. This is to ensure that citizens of paradise will be rich before they die. They can be poor when they are young. But they cannot be poor when they are old. And if this sum is not enough because inflation is going to eat a big chunk from it, you can be sure that it will be increased progressively. Do not be surprised if the Minimum Sum will hit $1 mil one day. And Singaporeans are all very happy and grateful for this savings that they must put aside. There is a Chinese saying, suffer first and enjoy later. Provided if you live that long to see the money.

Myth 183 - I am helping you

The hungry tiger was poised to devour the little goat. The little goat was shivering and unable to move, partly at the sight of a huge and ferocious tiger, partly because it was too weak to run. It had not eaten a full meal for several days. The owner of the little goat was equally worried. He must do something to help the goat. 'Wait, wait!' He shouted at the tiger. 'Please don't eat my little goat.' The tiger roared back. 'I am hungry and need to eat the goat to live.' The owner was very understanding. He knew that tigers would want to eat small animals for his meal. It was a reasonable act. He looked at the little goat and came out with a solution. He told the goat, 'Look, whatever, the tiger is going to eat you. And there is no way to run. The only way to save your life is to offer a leg to the tiger.' The little goat knew that it had no choice. And the owner was trying his best to help. It squeezed its eyes shut, bit its teeth and prepared itself for the tiger to rip off one of its legs. The owner was in a way a savior. The little goat was grateful for the help. A monk came along. 'Amitabha (or O mi to fu).' He said in his peaceful and serene way. 'Let me help.' Then he turned to the tiger, 'Here, have my arm instead.'

For the people or for the fat pay?

This has been the bugging question that many are asking. And the answer is also expected. Why is it that people are perceiving that everyone is working for that fat pay, that big bonus rather than for the people? Or can we blame the people for having such a wrongful perception? Trying to be objective, just look at all the policies and try to pick one, just one, that is really for the people and not to make the people pay more. Just pick one, and I am also having difficulty finding one. I think my question is absolutely biased. Is there a policy that is for the people and not after the people's pocket? I think I must be blind not to be able to find one. Aren't transport fare policies for the people, aren't ERPs to help the motorists? Oh, must include the 3/4 tank rule for this. Then the heavy subsidies for HDB flats to make flats affordable to the people, then the world class hospitals with heavily subsidised bills, the cheap education fees, low maintenance cost for a bloated world class govt? All these are and must be for the people. Why are people still so cynical and refused to see the all the goodnesses? Why are people holding so negative views about things, unbelieving, not believing? I think a new campaign is necessary to change the people's perception of the govt, that it is working all for the good of the people. Yes, the people are getting complacent and do not know how good life is in paradise. They forgot to count their blessings.

No time for pettiness in Officialdom

In times like this, narrow minded and petty officialdom should step aside. The people need to save every cent they could or stretch their dollar to the fullest. It is time for the govt to really think for the people and help the people to tie over such difficult times. No more silly excuses. A simple way, without subsidies, without handouts, is to let the people free, free to take advantage of the relatively cheaper cost of things in Malaysia, take advantage of the stronger dollar, to spend time and money across the causeway. Is this so difficult? Is this so disturbing, unbearable, so unacceptable? Or is the petty mind still thinking big? Remove the 3/4 tank rule. The silly reason that Singapore motorists will go over to pump their tanks and flood the roads because of cheaper petrol is the thinking of idiots. Unbelieveable that such reasoning can still be thrown at the people as million dollar wisdom. It is crap! Let the people go freely and spend freely in Malaysia. This is free trade as opposed to erecting trade barriers. The people must be given the freedom of choice to spend their money wherever gives them the best value. Restricting them from pumping petrol in JB is amoeba thinking. If there is any restriction on the sale of petrol, it should come from Malaysia. Malaysia should be the one to decide how much petrol it wants to sell to Singapore motorists. They will have to do their sums right, to offer cheaper petrol for more business, earning foreign exchange and other side effects of more Singaporeans travelling to JB.. We do not need petty thinking and rules to make life more difficult for our people just for more petrol taxes. Or are we waiting for the motorists to mount a protest with cars jamming BKE before this rule be relaxed. Think for the poorer motorists. Not everyone is earning a million dollars and can afford all the increases.

Let's not turn human rights into a battle ground

This is the title of Lydia Lim's article in the ST today. In the international scene, human rights has taken the form of inter state rivalry, a new form of warfare launched by the Americans against emerging nations, especially China and the rest of the world. Domestically, it is another issue that bothers around civil liberty, freedom of expression and the right of choice, independent choice to do and live as unfettered human beans. I will just mention a few phrases or sentences from Lydia's article which she quoted from Walter Woon and replace the words 'human rights' to 'civil rights' and see how the meaning could change to something more relevant to the people. 'What we are against is the assumption of some people that when they define what human rights are, that decision is the decision for the rest of humanity.' - Walter Woon. Change this to 'What we are against is the assumption of some people that when they define what civil rights are, that decision is the decision for the rest of Singaporeans.' Then substitute these civil rights and decisions with issues like CPF savings, CPF Life, etc, do we see that there are some similarities in the imposition of what some people think are good onto everyone, like it or not? Walter Woon also stated his fear of human rights fanatics and said, 'these are people who evidently believe that they and their values represent the apex of human moral development'. Do we have fanatics who think that their values or assumptions are the apex of human moral developments in our midst? Do we have people who think that it is good for you and decide to structure your life, your lifestyle and also how to use or spend your money? The only paragraphs that I share with Lydia are these, 'Like Ms Singam, I firmly believe that Singapore needs human rights champions, but I would like to point out that we need them not just in civil society but within the ranks of officialdom as well. I agree with her that the social realities we are confronted with show that respect for human rights is crucial to the right conduct of relations within societies and between states.' Absolutely. Between the ruler and the ruled, some must be champions of human rights. It reminds me of the days of the colonial masters in Africa and India, when the rulers would dictate the rights of the ruled people. The human rights champions in a democracy are different from the human rights champions of feudal societies.