What charity or charity from who?

While some quarters of the population are heaving a sigh of relief with the handouts from the govt, one may want to ask what charity and where were the money coming from? From taxation, profits from ministries, stats boards, GLCs? From CPF? Imagine a pool of 2 million workers contributing an average of $500 pm to the CPF, from both employer and employee, this will come to $1b a month or $12b a year!(on a 12 mth basis). And this money is to be kept almost forever, or at least some, till the contributor is dead. Put it another way, it is the people lending money to CPF/govt. After knocking out the interests of 2.5/4%, if there is a profit of 2%, that is $240m annually. Ok, after the recent debacle, there could be negative profits or even losses. But if there is no unduly high risk investment, a 2 or 3% profit over the interest payable to the contributors should not be an issue. The point I am making is that the people is contributing to their own charity just by the CPF contribution alone, not even touching on the revenue of the state which is also the people's money.

An apathetic populace is good

50th Year: An apathetic people Affluent, educated, yes - but we've also become a dispassionate people with little interest in politics and the government; it augurs ill for nation-building. By Seah Chiang Nee. June 6, 2009 The above article is posted in www.littlespeck.com. I would like to modify that statement a little by looking at it positively. A dispassionate people with little interest in politics and the govt augurs well for a paternalistic govt that would want to dominate over the people, controlled them and make all the decisions for them. It also augurs well for the preservation of a single dominant party and hinders the political maturity of a people. It will always be the govt and the people on two sides, the governed and the being governed. Is this good? I never believe that nurtured or cultured greenhouse plants can withstand the elements when the roof collapses. They need a sheltered environment and artificial fertilisers to grow well.

Lower income groups are having it so good

It is reported that their income increased from $1,200 pm in 2006 to $1,310 pm in 2008, a whooping increase of $110 in 2 years. Wow, wow, their lives must have been made better by the $110 pm raise. And it is computed that 3 roomers enjoyed a real wage increase per annum of 3.5% after factoring in inflation. And with all the govt support, handouts, give aways, etc, etc, what more can one ask for. The only people probably will be complaining are those earning $100k pm or more. For the economic crisis cuts across all income groups and the higher income earners were not spared. I can hear them cursing that their income increased only by $100k instead of $200k. For the lower income group this is something to celebrate and pop the champagne comes National Day.

Live well and die well

Many of you must have heard of the story that life should begin at 90 and ended when we become a baby, the reverse order of things. Maybe I should modify this a little to 70-0, starting at 70 and finishing at 0. At 70, quite a few would still be able to live a good life with body parts still functioning, with a lot of cash to spend and by the time they have enjoyed their life, it is time to retire as a baby, to be cuddle and pampered. That would be a good ending instead of all the old hags living but not living, becoming a burden to themselves, their family and the state. Under the present system and condition, don't ever wish to live past 70 if you don't have money. For you will need an overhaul of your whole body system and get the major parts changed. And you bet, most of you cannot afford it. If you can't you will ended up like stray dogs and cats, abandoned or neglected, and left to watch the world passes by in the void decks. But not to worry, especially the younger people. The govt will help you to plan for a life when you can live till 90 or even 100, and with a lot of money left to spend. The catch is that you will not have much to spend when you are young and healthy. You need to spread your income to 100 years. Which is a better choice, enjoy when you are young and can, and die well, or abstain from enjoying or living well, to live longer and drag on to 100? I think we need a whole rethink on the meaning of life, the meaning of savings, and the meaning of extending life unnecessarily. The latter could be a long and miserable journey to many, with money but just cannot do anything, except lying in bed. Is that a good life, a good way to live the last part of one's life? Do we really need to save so much for a time when we only need a bed to lie down and nothing else?

Notable quotes; Vladimir Putin on greed and hostage

'You have made thousands of people hostage to your ambitions, your lack of professionalism - or maybe simply your trivial greed.' Vladimir Putin Putin used these words to humiliate a top oligarch for causing a crisis in a town all because of greed. Take a moment to ponder over this statement and ask how relevant it is to our context. How many people have been made hostages by greed in paradise? How many policies could fall into the same category? I think we all know what they are. No point mentioning as people will not be happy to be told the truth. This year we will be celebrating 50 years of self rule, not independence. Is there a difference? Definitely, but I have dealt with this earlier. Let's look at the 50 years of success and 50 years to go full circle and probably going backwards. When PAP came to power in 1959, there were great promises of independence and a better life. And PAP delivered. And still delivering, except that some roads were leading to paradise and some to little chicken coops. Singaporeans have gone through living in little cubicles, attap and zinc roof wooden houses. We progressed to modern housing. There was a time when everyone was looking forward to better housing, 3 rm to 4 rm, to 5 rm, executive flats, condos and private housing. The govt even promised a future of a Swiss standard of living. There were high expectations and an air of confidence. The govt delivered. Many have attained Swiss standard of living and better. It is distressing to see that instead of continuing on that same path, the promises of tomorrow is no longer the Swiss standard of living but smaller housing, 2 rm and 3rm flats, at exorbitant prices. Are we promising a new standard, the Hongkong standard of living when a 50 sq m flat is considered a luxury apartment? The hard fact now is that people cannot afford the expensive public flats. So instead of bringing down the prices, they bring down the size of the flats, plus extended repayment terms. Why exorbitant prices? Why would people have to pay a life time, held at ransom for a life time, for a 2 rm or 3 rm flat, or any public flat, 4 rm or 5m? In today's paper, the Americans are buying landed properties costing only US$100k or less. Some in not so good condition could be had for US$10k and could be repaid in 2-3 years. Ok, different country, different conditions. They have big land, more choices and big problems. But these do not escape the fact that average Singaporeans still got to pay a life time for a small little space which they don't even own. I am not referring to the 20% who are living in paradise like lifestyle. We are a country, a nation. The people were with the govt for the last 50 years and prospered. What would be the future when the people, I mean the hardlanders, the majority of the people, feel that they have been left out of the prosperity boom? The basics, like decent housing, which I believe is a 4rm flat, not getting smaller, should be the standard for the average Singaporeans, to be affordable and not having to pay a life time for it. Now we are regressing, going down and smaller, while the other end is going up and bigger. If the govt is all calculative in the dollar sense, in housing policies, why shouldn't the people be calculative in sacrificing for the country, eg National Service. Can the value of NS be quantified in monetary terms, or should it be quantified in monetary terms? The people must see that their sacrifice is worth it, that there is a better tomorrow to look forward to. Are we heading that way? Would the next slogan of the govt be like, we will build more affordable 2 rm and 3 rm flats for the people? Or will it still be the dream of a Swiss standard of living?