A matter of ethics

How ethical are we? The word ethics becomes popular over the last few weeks. Even the minibond fiasco becomes a case of ethics to some. But that was pushing it a bit far. The minibond issue is a simple commercial issue, a contractual issue, with legal documents. Once you sign on the dotted line accepting what were written in the document, and if it says you will die after reading it, just too bad. Go to courts, they will interpret it legally. There are contractual terms and obligations. Tough huh? Ethics became an issue in the case of donors of human eggs for scientific experiments. These donors can donate but cannot reap monetary benefits from it. Next came the issue of organ donors. They too should not benefit from donating their organs. But the committe back off a little by saying that some compensation can be made as long as they are not worst off or better off. So the pedicab drivers cannot take more for donating their organs. It will be seen as organ trading. But the specialists operating for these organs can charge for the sky and be paid handsomely for it. Both are saving lives. To stretch the argument a little further, can hospitals whose mission is to save lives be allowed to charge as much as they want as long as the patient can afford to pay for it? Is this a matter of ethics or a matter of business? Is it ethical to keep raising prices of everything because it is convenient to do so and the people cannot object to it? It is quite strange to be discussing about ethics and not being ethical to make money when everyone lives by that principle. Make profits, legally or illegally, is an admirable trait. It is called talent here.

FT PM also can consider

I posted about the possibility of a minority PM and issues like keeping foreigners as PRs as well as having different PMs for different ethnic groups. I am not having much of a discussion, or interest shown in them. Is it a case of distinterest or apathy? Anyone agree or disagree with what I have said? I taunted by saying that the 3 Indian ministers are better than the rest of the majority and I thought this will provoke some reactions. Maybe everyone agrees huh? Or maybe not. Maybe all our locals are not good enough and we should be looking at the new citizens, the FTs that are presumably better than the locals and are here to save us and provide us with better genes. The first foreign talent I have in mind is Gong Li. She is making a lot of money and well known internationally. How? At least she makes more money than any of our ministers and should qualify as a supertalent. The next possible candidate is Taksin. A former PM looking for a job and a home. And he has proven himself more than worthy in all areas to be a possible PM. I think he will have no problems blending in here as he has been here many times. And he has money! Hey, how about Vijay Singh? He was here before, like Obama in Indonesia. He should feel very comfortable being one of us. And he is a supertalent as well, making a lot of money and world famous. These are candidates that we can identify with. And there are many more who are already citizens and living with us. I think our talent pool is much richer now with all the FTs who have turned citizens.

Mission confused or mixed up kids

The pricing of HDB flats to market prices is just a natural and convenient process. When market prices go up, prices of HDB flats must go up. But HDB is also kind enough to price them with a market subsidy so that the buyers still pay less than the market price. Is that not fair? Yes it is fair, and very logical and very reasonable too. What about the immediate and long term consequences of higher property prices? The immediate problem to the new buyers is that their money shrinks every time the market price goes up. The young couple could be saving for their $300k dream flat. And they think they have saved enough only to find that money still not enough because the $300k flat is now $500k. Thanks to the appreciation of property prices and HDB’s pricing policies. And thanks to the great subsidy the HDB is giving them. But money still not enough after several years of savings. It is like chasing an illusion. Ok, buy a smaller dream flat. Don’t buy what you cannot afford. That’s life man! Profit is good. Why shouldn’t HDB make the extra profit when they can? Making profit from who and for what? The person who made this clever decision should be rewarded with a $10m bonus. The decision is so brilliant and the profit so clean and easy. But he shall remember that he has just hung a $200k millstone on the neck of the new buyers. And the affected buyers are not going to think kindly of it. Even donating his millions to charity will not be enough to amend the losses or burdens that the people will have to carry. As a govt body, the mission is to serve the people, not simply making more profit from every opportunity. It is an unnecessary decision that HDB need not make. A smaller increase would be much palatable. Instead, the $200k will be seen as an opportunistic decision by a mixed up organisation that forget its main mission. And it will reflect badly on what govt is all about. When the roles of govt and business got entangled and the bearing lost, this is what the people can expect. When the govt thinks it is doing business and when business thinks it is the govt, everything will be turned upside down.

We create our own model and our own problems

During the early days of our independence, we were still suffering from the colonial hangovers. The residence were not all citizens and still lived as if they were British subjects. Home or obligation was to their motherlands. This island was a transitional place, to make a living and to return to their homelands. Do they bother about who became the Prime Minister or was he of a particular race? In fact they were more accustomed to a European face as the political master. And if not, anyone would do. It was not their concern. For those who were eligible to vote, a minority, they could vote whoever they want. No hard feelings, no emotional attachment, no ethnic pride to boot. They knew that they were just migrants, did not belong here. After 45 years of independence and nation building, we have created a fragile nation from the various races. We wanted one people regardless of race and religion. But we also want every race to retain their own identity as their cultural ballasts. The is our paradox. We want to be one but our policies do not turn us into one. Our identity card still says we are of this or that race. Can we then rise above our racial divide and become one people? There was a time when we were moving closer as one people. Then we have this influx of foreigners whom we called new citizens. They came and they accentuate our differences more distinctly. We are back to square one, to redevelop a new people from all over the world. As the number increases, prepare for more diversities and pulls into all directions. If we have let our socio political development to continue without the disruption of the new citizens, the issue of what colour is our PM will be naturalised over time and a good man will be seen as a good man, regardless of race or religion, and will just fit into the shoe without much hullaboo. The more we raise such questions, the more will be the awareness of our differences and the sensitivity of why not a minority PM. Only time can overcome such differences. But if we keep diluting the pot and prevent a Singaporean identity to surface, we only have ourselves to blame. Two possible path forward to alleviate such an issue. Since we have regarded PRs as locals, it may be better to keep them as PRs. Then they will know how to shut up and stop demanding for their rights as a citizen and for their own PMs, like what we were during the colonial time. The other is to continue what we are doing, have more new citizens and be prepared for the new interest groups to demand recognition of their tribes. Maybe we should evolved a system with 4 or 5 PMs each of difference races.

No easy way out

When asked, Lim Swee Say said that cutting CPF is a last resort and should only be used after all measures have failed. I would presume that retrenchment should be a last resort for companies to take when they are trimming cost. Retrenchment is a very painful process and has a serious psychological effect on the affected staff and should not be treated lightly. Are we going to see more companies starting their retrenchment exercises as we enter a phase of recession? If that is the alternative, pay cut or CPF cut could be more palatable. The Union's stand is that no company will be allowed to take the easy way out by retrenching staff in difficult times.