Sacrificing our child for our own benefit

A Primary One child starts school at 7.20am. Depending on the distance and mode of transportation, the child may have to wake up before 6am to get to school. Now why is there a need for a child at such a tender age to start school at 7.20am? Oh, the parents need to go to work. So they need to pack the child off to school first, could be on the way to work. Huh? For the convenience of the parents, for the convenience of meeting working hours, we force our little ones to wake up so early in the morning, sleepy eyes, to go to school. Are we humans or monsters? For all decency, there is no need for young children to start school before 9am. The parents can go and sort out their own problems. Do not sacrifice our children for the sake of the adults.

You are free to leave!

This is the often repeated message by Singaporeans or new citizens when Singaporeans are griping about some of the things that they are not happy with. Goh Wen Zhong, a LSE student also said the same thing in the ST forum today. This is a simplistic view of a snobbish response, an arrogant and thoughtless remark. Not only that many cannot afford to go, you need to be welcomed, qualified to go where you want to to. And the people who can do that would likely be the talents that we want to keep. The other is the issue of our right to stay. As citizens, it is our right to stay. And as responsible citizens, it is our right to demand changes for the betterment of country and people. Running away is not an option. And if any silly politician would dare to tell a citizen to quit if he is unhappy, kick him in the arse. He deserves that for being childish and rude. Singaporeans must stay in this place they called home. This is where they belong. How and what shapes the country takes shall be decided by them, not by a few individuals. Let no one threatens you or ask you to leave your home, your country. Singaporeans must be stayers, to redefine and rebuild the country to what they want. The country belongs to everyone who is a Singaporean. Running away is to give this island away be default.

Extortion on the rise!

Yes, and it seems legal, technically. I am sure many of you have received unsolicited credit cards and given lines of credit. When the cards plus all the terms arrived, you will find that you will have to pay an annual fee. Sometimes they called, and I politely told them that all my credit cards are free. If they are giving them free to me, I will keep them. If not they can cancel the cards and facilities. Now this practice is getting more arrogant. They just send the package to you, And they bill you if you did not call them to reject them. The onus is now upon the recipients to call and act on something he does not ask for. Now he has to take the trouble to make those nonsensical calls to a phone machine and to wait for several minutes, pressing stupid numbers to get through. And you don't normally get through on the first attempt but after several attempts. I just received another card, with lines of credit, with cheque books, and of course with an annual fee. I conveniently threw everything into the rubbish chute. I am waiting for the bank to call me for payment of annual fees. You can expect what I am going to show them. Is there any law that I can go to for redress against such extortionist acts? The banks may even use their legal muscle to threaten small people like us for not paying. What is this country turning into? Oh, and I remember sometimes back a big shot banker was complaining about unethical practices in the industry. Is this unethical practice?

Was jobless, penniless and a petty thief.

Salimudin was jobless and penniless and was a petty thief. That was his life offering. He offered a part of his liver for a sum of $44k in a illegal organ transplant. The operation did not pose a risk to his health if done professionally. This is reported in the Sunday Times today. He has since bought a house and live with his family, including two children, respectfully. He also bought a 5,000 sq meter oil palm plantation. He is a little rich plantation owner now, and life is comfortable. Is he exploited? The picture of him and his beautiful family flashing their happy smiles say it all. He is a very happy man. If there is no change in the current thinking to consider legalising organ trading, I doubt his case would stand a chance to be aired. It would likely be forgotten, better not to talk about things that the conventional wisdom is against. The mass hysteria being stirred up can end with people being burnt on the stakes. Now we will probably see more stories from the dark side, which actually becomes brighter because of organ transplant. But Salimudin was a lucky one. He did not get cheated by the parties in between. With organ trading being illegal, many could be cheated and there is no redress. That can become more tragic when he gets only a pittance and the middle men took the king's ransom. And both illegal donors and illegal recipients can be found guilty by the court of law and punished. Tang Wee Sung paid $300k and is facing criminal charges. His potential donor have been jailed and fined. And yes, some will enjoy discussing about it as a matter of ethics and morals while people are desperately trying to keep themselves alive or dying. And people like Salimudin will still be prowling the night as petty thieves.

Our political system, accommodative or hostile?

9 candidates will stand for the Indonesian Presidential election. We can't find even one willing to stand unless the ruling party nominates him. And the restrictive rule that one must be an elite before one can even qualify further removes a large number of good candidates. The Indonesian do have their rules governing eligibility, like being a member of a political party and with a 15% representation in Parliament. Another built in barrier favouring the ruling party. What is important is that there is no dearth of qualified and respectable candidates offering themselves to the people. In our case, even without the elitist ruling, not many will want to stand. Some misfits may stand up. But we cannot simply dismiss the intelligence of the people to vote for a freak. Let's have more trust in a people that is well educated, well informed and good enough to be comparable to a first world country. And Chok Tong was talking about tweaking the system to make it more relevant. The question is that why is the current system unable to throw up more good people in politics and the presidency? Is the system accommodative or seen as hostile to political participation? Obviously the latter, given the lack of participation and only participates when invited. If the system is allowed to continue without any serious changes, what will happen is that no good people will want to come out voluntarily. And those who come out will join the opposition and probability have a kind of attitude that the ruling party fears most. A recklessness or do or die attitude, bring down the system before the system brings them down. The divide will grow and becomes irreconcilable. And things will naturally gets more vicious and unrestrained, for the good of neither side. We are seeing this happening. Why would good and decent people want to get involve in politics when their little indiscretion could suddenly be a national issue? Things like putting a ball point pen from the office in his bag and use to sign his personal cheques as well. Or his little relaxation in a spa in Bintan suddenly floated in the rumour mill. Or worst things could even happen. Chok Tong talked about a system that would throw up good leaders in both the ruling party and the opposition. Is our system doing that? Looking at the opposition camp, we know that it is definitely not. Looking at the ruling party, it is apparent that they are scrapping at the bottom of the barrel. Other than the key appointment holders, let's face it, ...I shall save my comments as they are not very flattering. We need a system that promotes healthy participation from good people in politics. We need to accept and listen to alternative views and grow with them. There seems to be some changes in this line of thought in the ruling party, with more conciliatory messages for a better opposition. Would it turn into a reality or just a red herring? Under the present system and political climate, it is near impossible to have good people forming their own political parties to provide a decent alternative to the ruling party. They won't. The rules of the game is stacked against one side and the price for participation can be untold misery, when the opposition becomes a real potential to win an election. No one knows what will come out when the gloves are off. Can we really move forward and evolve into something healthier?