Giving is the greatest act of Charity

To give selflessly is the greatest act of Charity. Singaporeans were encouraged to give their money and whatever, in charity shows, not for anything in return, but an act of love, to help the less fortunate. But when something is tied to this act, to give and to receive in turn for the good deed, it is no longer a charitable act. If one wants to give, one must give without any thought of getting something back. As the greatest debate on organ trading descended on paradise, we are hearing two opposing views on this sensitive and painful issues of organ donation. The do gooders, the champions of the poor and unfortunate, the protector of the weak, say no, we cannot exploit them. The value of their organs is priceless. On the other corner, the people who have experienced the pain and despair of a dying kidney failure patient, were strongly in favour of legalising the trade. They have lived through their parts of seeing a loved one dying. They have gone through the desperation of finding all avenues of help closed to them. They have lived like the end of tomorrow was staring at them. Only the availability of an organ could bring back some hope to their lives. Their argument is that the donors will also stand a chance to benefit from his involuntary act other than saving a life. The money he gets could bring to them a new lease of a better life. Is that wrong? When there is no compulsion, no exploitation, with all the regulations in place to ensure that it is a deal that is as fair as possible to both parties, would not that be sufficient to let the transaction go through? Only the donor will know how bad he needs the money and how much he is willing to part with his organ. He has his own price given his own situation. No price is right or too expensive. But price is relative, just like the price of a human life. Some are dirt cheap or worthless. Some rather die than live. There is one group that is conspicuously absent from this debate. The hard thinking, pragmatic and market mechanism believers. This group can be expected to come out and say the brutal truth. Or at least say something that we should not meddle with the market forces and let the market determine the value of the organ. Maybe they are waiting for someone close to be afflicted with this modern day plague before they speak out in favour of organ trading. Or maybe they are indulging in such trade quietly, not wanting to be known that they too have done it. For the moment, the gods of righteousness and high moral win. Organ trading should not be allowed. The law should deal harshly with those who committed such despicable acts of exploiting the poor and desperate. And those who went overseas quietly to have it done, they should be punished on their return. This is the current morality on organ trading in paradise. I am saying current because the standard of morality is subjective, relative and variable from place to place and in time.

Not a matter of faith, but of rights

July 5, 2008 I REFER to the open letter NTUC Income chief executive officer Tan Suee Chieh sent to me last Wednesday and, presumably, to the rest of Income's policyholders. It is unfortunate that Mr Tan and his new management team have not grasped the fundamental concern of existing policyholders regarding Income's bonus-restructuring exercise. Contrary to what he believes is a question of faith in him and his management team, the bone of contention for most policyholders is about how Income has unilaterally restructured the bonus scheme on not only new insurance plans, but existing ones as well. The key question Mr Tan and his management team should ask is this: If the customer had known that Income would execute an about-turn and change the bonus proportion at its own discretion, would the then-prospective policyholder have signed up? It should be the right of each consumer or policyholder, not the insurer, to determine what is in his best interest. The fact that NTUC Income has unilaterally implemented the change in the bonus scheme without allowing existing policyholders the choice of opting in or out shows a complete disregard for the sanctity of policy agreements and policyholders' rights and freedom to choose. I must therefore question the sincerity of Income's 'guided principles' to protect and enhance the interests of its policyholders. It is like telling a child he is being locked in a cage to prevent him falling down and getting hurt. As society progresses and the financial sector matures, we expect a more balanced approach to consumers' rights. Dennis Liu The above is a letter printed in the ST forum. Just reflect a little on what other organisations are doing the same thing and getting away with it. Changing the terms and conditions midstream, claiming that it is for your own good and leaving you with no right to object or to opt out. This is the kind of degeneration of the rights of the people or consumers. An organisation can do what it wants, changing the goal posts, and get away with it.

It is hip to be poor!

At a time when we celebrate our Golden Years, it is also a time to be hip to be poor in paradise. Let's help the losers feel a little better by telling teaching them to brag out loudly on how to stinge a few cents to get by. Let's not be shy about it. When one does not have the money, do the things that the have nots have been doing, and make them sound fashionable. The ST have reported 30 great ways to save, to tighten your belt, as a new life style. I too have been doing them quietly for many years, a bit ashame of the kinds of things I did to save some money. I walk instead of taking public transport, to save a few cents. But I will say that it is for exercise, for health reasons. I climb the stairs, also for the same reasons, but not telling people that I can't afford to join the famous gyms. I wear cheap watches or plastic ones, deliberately as if to dress down on purposes but actually can afford the $30k branded ones. Wear cheap imitation jeans from Bugis or pasar malam, tear and cut them everywhere to look authentically poor but hip. And everything is DIY to save on cost. Drink plain water and give the reasons that caffeinated drinks are bad for health. And I don't go to the barber, kept my hair long, tied it into a pony tail and look neither male nor female, then say it is the style, like artistes or movie stars. Feels great. There are many excuses to save money and act cool at the same time. Oh, I don't eat sharksfin too, to save the sharks. And to be eco friendly, I stop driving to town. Shhhhh, can't afford the high fuel cost and the high ERPs. Never mind squeezing, sweating and smelling all the body odour. Just got to bear with it. There is an Ah Q emerging inside me.

What should be the role of media?

Today paper is getting quite a lot of attention lately since it took on a more aggressive stance. It took a strong position on the fiascos by the Home Ministry and then an opinionated article on Rosmah Mansor, the wife of Najib Razak. And the attention came from the Malaysian High Commissioner Parameswaran and also eliciting a comment from Hsien Loong not to take sides. Then Paul Jacob added by saying that what Today was doing was nothing knew as the Malaysian media were reporting similar slanted articles about Singapore politicians. Both sides can play the game. I think the problem lies in the impression that the Singapore TOM is synonymous with the govt or official mouth piece. And to allow articles that were unpleasant about another country, especially Malaysia, is like the govt condoning it. That is one of the disadvantage of being seen as being part of the govt. But of course TOM is an independent and privately run organisation and such perception is not justified. It is run by independent minded professionals who pride themselves as being well trained and their pieces as being well researched and objectives. What Today has done is a good thing. It makes the paper more colourful and readable instead of the former staid reporting, or like other TOM, reporting of stale and single dimensional pro official slant that immediately puts off the readership. We should have more opinionated pieces on issues local and foreign to give readers a chance to examine them more thoroughly and provoke into thinking a little more. The straight reporting of facts only assumes that the readership is unthinking and dull and would not be able to sieve the truth from the tooth. This opening up of TOM to be more expressive is a step in the right direction but would be better if the views are not seen as an official view or officially sanctioned one.

How to sodomise a man?

Very simple. Ask the guy to go with you to a condominium. Then ask him to remove his pants and bend down. Then he is all yours. That could possibly be what had happened to the case of Saiful Bukhari Azlan when he claimed to be sodomised by Anwar Ibrahim. And according to TOM, he was with Anwar on many trips overseas. The question that is puzzling me is that a man, a healthy young man, would not protest and allow himself to be sodomised. A woman would fight when she is being raped or has sex forced upon her. This young man was so obedient, no resistance. And after some time decided to report to the police about the incident. Would any young man fight off a would be attacker who attempts to sex him? Telling the guy off would surely be the least thing to do. Here, it seemed like consensual, a willing partner. Is this a guy or a gay? He seems normal, with a girlfriend. Any normal man will repulse any such moves against his virginity. Very strange story.