The oldies are a treasure to an organisation!

Did anyone say this?When have oldies became a treasure to an organisation and must be duly rewarded? Sounded like the grandpas and grandmas are the treasures in a family. There is now a reawakening and a new call to be good to the oldies. No longer were they seen as retards, slow and useless piece of woods to be quickly discarded when they hit retirement age, at 55 or 60. Now people are seriously saying that the oldies must be paid according to their worth and contributions, not to cut their pay when they reached the magical age of senility. Is there a change of heart or a case of today I proclaim the oldies as bad, tomorrow as good, then I suka suka say they are bad again, good, bad....It was bearly 10 years ago when many oldies, or not even oldies, were given the red ticket to retire unceremoniously. Many were in their early 50s and many are still jobless or driving taxis despite their experience in managerial and executive positions. Can these premature sacking of the oldies be reversed, and these not really oldies but now oldies be invited into the workforce again? Or can they claim for some kind of compensation for the bad mistakes done to them in the past? Who was the wise kid who decided that these not so oldies should go? Who is the wise kid today to say the oldies must be treasured? My god, what kind of mindset change could happen so fast? The think tanks must be thinking too hard and go flipping about with such a major and serious issues. How could they not know that oldies are treasures, that oldies need to work till 80 or 90, but only today to realise this?

Amazing Grace

Hi everyone, my apologies for not being able to post yesterday as I was hosting a party and couldn't slip away. Now the party is over and I am back with my daily sermons for which some may regard it as the sermons of a fool. Oh, incidentally the number of hits and visitors to my blog shot up by 10% during my absence. I am just curious. Were the bloggers missing on my sermons of a fool and kept coming back hoping that I threw in a post? Anyway, may god be compassionate and deliver those who could not bear to read the sermons of a fool from my blog. But if they choose to stay and listen to this fool, they are most welcomed to be intoxicated by my foolishness.

Blogging is a waste of time!

Blogging, whinning, complaining, writing letters to forums to air your disagreements etc were a complete waste of time. This was the message I got in a discussion with some friends. Why bothered whether it was Low or Chiam or Sitoh or Eric making the announcements on the LUP? It was money spent for the good of the people. There was no issue or the issue was too small to talk about. Later I discovered why it was a waste of time. All these talks would be worth nothing, and nothing changed. Go and form an opposition party and take on the govt if you think strongly of issues or else get on with your life and let the govt do what they think best. If this is the kind of attitude that Singaporeans should adopt, then there will be peace in paradise. And everything will be well taken care of. There will be no need for the ST to spare 3 or 4 pages on the public housing issues today. In an article, 'Insight examines the six most hotly debated issues among house hunters today' by Tan Hui Yee, the following were discussed: 1. Are permanent residents driving up resale flat prices? 2. Are investors pushing up prices of resale flats. 3. Are new HDB flats really subsidised? 4. Are new flats affordable? 5. Is $8000 income ceiling too low? 6. Are leftovers flats really 'undesirable'? Though I would expect more insights from these articles than just what have been discussed publicly, it is good that ST officially dealt with these issues and gave it a wider coverage. And there was a letter from Lim Yuin Chien responding to Sylvia Lim's rebutt. What Lim Yuin Chien said is simply, 'Let's agree to disagree.' What this means is very similar to what I heard last night, that the govt will do it its way and you can disagree. But if you want to do it differently from the govt, make sure you form the govt, ie, form an alternative party and vote the govt out if you can. Otherwise, tough.

And we want our workers to be CBF

In order to be CBF, our workers must be cheap, work better and faster. Now there is a new call, not to cut the pay of older workers. Can the older workers be faster than the younger workers, better, possible. Then while the rest of the workers are expected to be cheap or cheaper, would the older workers also be cheap and cheaper? 3 old workers doing the work of 7? In the private sector when everything is about competition, when the money paid to the workers must come from somewhere, from the revenue or at the expense of profit, it is easier said than done to keep paying workers the way they are being paid. Unless of course the organisation can print its own money or money is not an issue. By all means, pay the older workers what they deserve and more, pay them pension as well, or gratuities for long service at the same time. Is there a contradiction?

What CBF?

What is CBF? Someone asked. It means cheaper, better and faster workers. Cheap and good, that’s what it means. How can cheap be good? Singaporeans only know that cheap means no good. You want anything good, you must pay for it. Good public housing, good market price. Good medical, high fees. Good govt, pay them well. If we are not willing to pay the price for it, we will get poor quality public housing, poor medical care and lousy quality govt. Can we really have good and cheap workers? But this is only one part of the equation. Can our workers afford to be cheap when housing is not cheap, medical is not cheap, govt is not cheap, cost of living is not cheap? Cheap worker and high cost of living is a ‘bao si’ or sure die combination. When housing, rentals and everything keep going up, how to get by if the pay is not going up? Ah, here is the secret. Cheap and better worker does not mean low wages. Our workers can expect their wages to go up. Productivity will be improved through mechanization or improvement in work processes. Or anyway, 3 workers do 7 workers’ work. It will mean higher productivity growth versus lower wage growth, but still growth, I think. Tiok boh?