The shame of the diplomatic corp

Is Silviu Ionescu a typical example of the character and integrity of a diplomat? If he is, then the whole diplomatic corp is a sham. How could a man of such low integrity and despicable conduct be chosen by a country to be their representative? And presumably he is the best that Romania can find. It is either their system is so flawed, or the quality of their civil servants is suspect. And if they do not bring him to justice it will reflect very badly on what Romania is all about. On the diplomatic corp here, what are their views and stand on this Ionescu incident? So far they have been very quiet. It would be nice if the head of the diplomatic community take a stand to distance themselves from this obnoxious man whom they wined and dined and embraced as one of them. If they still think that Ionescu is one of them and a good one, then the diplomatic corp will become a joke in town.

The MTL Debate

The debate continues. Actually it is a very healthy exercise to talk about this issue as it affects practically every school going child and the parents. And the outcome will have a very significant impact on the future of the generations of children to come, and what Singapore will be. At the moment the tussel is between those for and those against MTL with some in between. Both camps have strong reasons to argue for their cases. In between there is a middle camp that accepts MTL but wants it to be made simpler or easier. Ng Eng Hen and his team would now have to sweat it out to come out with a compromise solution to appease the parties. I doubt that in this case they would dare to use the compulsory sword and just decide and make the people accept it like CPF Life, Medisave, Minimum Sum etc etc. Taking such an option will be very costly politically. Whatever the final decision on this, let's hope it is a wise one. The unfortunate thing is that not everyone is going to be happy about it no matter how it turns out. This is clearly an area that is not white or black. Maybe he can fall back on his policy as a long term one as the consequences of the policy will take generations to bear fruits, be it sweet, sour or poisonous. Only the future will tell.

Notable quote by Goh Keng Swee

"A system may arise in which the dominant minority... arrogate to itself not only the openings to the seats of power, but also the avenues by which individuals can fit themselves out for such positions of power. The dominant minority is thus able to point out those outside of the charmed circle just do not have the necessary qualifications to be admitted to the elite group." Dr Goh Keng Swee I copied the above quotes from Loh Chee Kong's article posted in Corporate Observer. In the same article there are several quotes that are worth readin, to freshen up from the staleness of the new mantras that violate the wisdom of the old. Reading his speech and the quotes gives one the impression that he had seen it coming and was warning us of how things could turn out in the future. His reticence after retirement could say a lot.

CPF threatening to sue and fine

I read Gilbert Goh’s post about CPF demanding him to pay for the shortfall in his Medisave account for a sum of $16,600 as his contribution for being self employed. All self employed, regardless of age, must contribute to the Medisave for as long as they are alive and working. Isn’t this a cock policy when people are starting to collect their CPF savings at 55 and some delayed till 62? Why should people who continue to work after 55 be expected to contribute to the Medisave when they are in a better position than those who have retired and not working? These self employed are economically active and earning an income to support themselves and no need to draw down or depending on their savings to support themselves. According to the Medisave Act, there is no exception. So if one is working at 100 years old, the old hag must still contribute to his Medisave. How outrageous. But no one is complaining. Like the story goes, when they came for the Jews, I kept quiet coz I am no Jew. When they came for the Christians, I kept quiet, coz I ain’t no Christian. When they came for the Commie, I kept quiet coz I ain’t no Commie. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up for me.

In Goh Keng Swee's time

Those were hard times. People lived in tiny cubicles, many people inside a room, one room for a family and often more than a family, with share common kitchens and toilets. Goh Keng Swee went out to move these people to HDB flats, where a family or maybe an extended family could live in a flat of 3 rm or 4rm. The strange thing then was that no one ever mumbled or complained that the flats were expensive or not affordable. That was a non issue. The flats were simply affordable. No argument, no need to put one's foot down to insist anyway. Today, the flats are affordable, still. Because the govt said so. But the people don't think so. And the argument is pissing off a lot of buyers who could not afford the flats. But they have to accept the govt's argument that the flats are indeed affordable. That settles the argument though deep inside the people's heart they knew that the flats are very expensive and very unaffordable to some. And it is still an outstanding issue that is going round and round. This is the real difference between the govt of Goh Keng Swee's time and the govt of today. They did what was necessary and what was right, and the people believed and were grateful to the govt. And no need to argument until the face turns green, with statistics, when deep down the people knew what is and what is not affordable. Housing was a success story. Can't really say of the present as the consequences of high prices will only tell some way down the road. Buying a flat then was a happy thing, a roof over the head. Today, buying a flat comes with a big debt and big worries. PS. I am talking about buying a HDB flat. Buying private or landed property is a happy thing. The buyer will simply plonked down his millions in cash. No need to worry about big mortgages to pay.