Many bloggers have complained that the speed of this blog is getting too slow. Often it gets stuck or frozen and causing a lot of frustration to users. My apologies. The service provider of this blog is Bloggers and if it is a system fault only Blogger can answer for it.
My feeling is that this blog is becoming a heavyweight, getting too heavy, and unable to move quickly. Now, is this a good sign or a bad sign. Some say good, only heavyweight blog will encounter such problems. Lightweight blogs will be speeding along quite happily with lower traffic, like a free flowing expressway.
I think Firefox is still crusing quite well. Some have suggested Explorer Chrome. I hope it is not due to the generosity of some parties who happily shared introduced some bugs or cookies into the blog. I have removed some pages and links to make it lighter.
For the time being, let's pretend that it is a heavyweight blog and getting too much unwelcome attention: )
8/16/2011
Shanmugam is right
In a way, Shanmugam is right in telling the Singaporeans to vote for the President as spelt out by the Constitution and not the President they wished to have. What else can the Singaporeans do? For this presidential election, Singaporeans have no choice. It is written in the Constitution and Singaporeans going to the polls cannot act other wise.
Singaporeans who want to vote for the Office of the President with powers and duties they wished the President would have would have to wait till the next GE. Only in a GE will Singaporeans have a choice to decide what kind of EP they want. And if they are serious of wanting their kind of President, they will need to vote in a different political party to Parliament and with a 2/3 majority. Only then can they change the terms of reference of the EP, even all the criteria of eligibility for the presidential candidates. They can even disband the Presidential Election Council.
Yes, they can do that only if a new party comes into power with a 2/3 majority in 2016. For the time being, everything is fixed. Cannot change except to elect one of the Tans. There is nothing else that Singaporeans can do now.
Singaporeans who want to vote for the Office of the President with powers and duties they wished the President would have would have to wait till the next GE. Only in a GE will Singaporeans have a choice to decide what kind of EP they want. And if they are serious of wanting their kind of President, they will need to vote in a different political party to Parliament and with a 2/3 majority. Only then can they change the terms of reference of the EP, even all the criteria of eligibility for the presidential candidates. They can even disband the Presidential Election Council.
Yes, they can do that only if a new party comes into power with a 2/3 majority in 2016. For the time being, everything is fixed. Cannot change except to elect one of the Tans. There is nothing else that Singaporeans can do now.
Questionable numbers
Two sets of numbers in Hsien Loong’s speech don’t really make sense. The first is the number of university places from 9,000 to 12,000 in a decade, from 2001 to 2011. By now every Singaporean should be familiar with the increase in population from 3m to the present 5m plus, or almost a doubling of the population in the last decade or so. The problem is so glaring that our super talents even failed to see and failed to provide for it. Go figure it out.
With such a huge increase in population and the provision of 18% of university places for foreign students, the total increase in places is only 3000 when the population gone up by nearly 3m. Maybe the number is too big and too fast that it is very difficult to grasp even for the most talented.
The other numbers, income ceiling for BTO flats from $8k to $10k and $10K to $12k for Exec condominiums. Superficially looks like a big relaxation. It was reported in the Today paper yesterday that a young couple whose combined income was $11k were feeling lucky. So happy, now qualifies to buy EC. Really?
In the past, when one registered to buy a HDB flat, they used your income from the date of registration. I was told that today, they used the income when one is offered the flat. (Correct me if I am wrong). Get the idea? This is one of the sick causes of why many young people got kicked out of the system when they could not get a flat within a few years.
Would the $11k couple still be qualified in 3 or 4 years time when the flat is built? For such mid level professionals, a couple of thousands of increment over a 3/4 year period is common. And there are two of them. It is quite possible that one year after registering they could see themselves disqualified with income exceeding the $12k.
Such situation will affect many in the $8k to $10k group who are eligible for BTO as well. It will affect the singles as well. So, is the increase/solution really effective, or will it help the singles and young couples or all the flat applicants?
With such a huge increase in population and the provision of 18% of university places for foreign students, the total increase in places is only 3000 when the population gone up by nearly 3m. Maybe the number is too big and too fast that it is very difficult to grasp even for the most talented.
The other numbers, income ceiling for BTO flats from $8k to $10k and $10K to $12k for Exec condominiums. Superficially looks like a big relaxation. It was reported in the Today paper yesterday that a young couple whose combined income was $11k were feeling lucky. So happy, now qualifies to buy EC. Really?
In the past, when one registered to buy a HDB flat, they used your income from the date of registration. I was told that today, they used the income when one is offered the flat. (Correct me if I am wrong). Get the idea? This is one of the sick causes of why many young people got kicked out of the system when they could not get a flat within a few years.
Would the $11k couple still be qualified in 3 or 4 years time when the flat is built? For such mid level professionals, a couple of thousands of increment over a 3/4 year period is common. And there are two of them. It is quite possible that one year after registering they could see themselves disqualified with income exceeding the $12k.
Such situation will affect many in the $8k to $10k group who are eligible for BTO as well. It will affect the singles as well. So, is the increase/solution really effective, or will it help the singles and young couples or all the flat applicants?
8/15/2011
A time to stop contributing to Medisave
As long as one is employed, one continues to contribute to CPFMedisave for as long as one is alive. For self employed, they will have to continue contributing to Medisave even at 100 years or more under the present rules. What is the logic of contributing endlessly when CPF savings can be withdrawn progressively after 55?
The other point is the bottomless limit of Medisave Minimum Sum to be retained, increasing annually. There is a point in life when living is a matter of diminishing returns. There is a point in life when there is no point to perpetuate life when the cost of keeping one alive is unsustainable and for no benefits. When one has lived to a ripe old age, when the legs and hands no longer move, or could barely move, when the body no longer feels, when keeping the body alive is so expensive, living or being alive is suffering, what is the point of having a lot of money in the Medisave when in such a state?
For the rich, when money is not an issue, it is ok. To many, when money is a big issue, it is not ok. Should the govt pass legislation to hold back the people’s savings after 75, 80 or more, so that the money can be used for expensive medical bills while the owner of the money could no longer enjoy even simple food, see nor hear?
There must be a point in time when money is no longer useful, when being kept alive is meaningless. Money is useful when one can still enjoy them, having a good meal, a drink, or moving around, still able to feel the senses.
The legislation must be changed to stop CPF from taking the people’s money after a certain age. A self employed person at 60 is in a much better financial position than one that is unemployed and drawing down on his CPF savings. When one is eligible to withdraw the CPF savings, that should be the age for those who are still economically active to be spared the burden of contributing to Medisave. Their incomes are more valuable when they are young, (not counting wasteful inflation) than when they are no longer physically able.
Savings for Medisave after the CPF withdrawal age must be voluntary. After 55/62, CPF or Medisave contribution must no longer be compulsory but voluntary. Otherwise it is like extorting the old folks, to withhold their money to fatten the nation’s reserves, and which they are unlikely to use them. It is another way of robbing them to pay the hospitals, against their wish when they are mentally unable to decide for themselves.
After certain age, the people must have the right to decide if they want to waste their money to pay the expensive hospital bills. Maybe some are hoping that once the oldies hit dementia, unsound mind, let other people decide on how to spend their huge savings in the Medisave.
It is time the govt review the CPF/Medisave Contributions for the old folks. Stop bullying them and taking their money against their wills.
The other point is the bottomless limit of Medisave Minimum Sum to be retained, increasing annually. There is a point in life when living is a matter of diminishing returns. There is a point in life when there is no point to perpetuate life when the cost of keeping one alive is unsustainable and for no benefits. When one has lived to a ripe old age, when the legs and hands no longer move, or could barely move, when the body no longer feels, when keeping the body alive is so expensive, living or being alive is suffering, what is the point of having a lot of money in the Medisave when in such a state?
For the rich, when money is not an issue, it is ok. To many, when money is a big issue, it is not ok. Should the govt pass legislation to hold back the people’s savings after 75, 80 or more, so that the money can be used for expensive medical bills while the owner of the money could no longer enjoy even simple food, see nor hear?
There must be a point in time when money is no longer useful, when being kept alive is meaningless. Money is useful when one can still enjoy them, having a good meal, a drink, or moving around, still able to feel the senses.
The legislation must be changed to stop CPF from taking the people’s money after a certain age. A self employed person at 60 is in a much better financial position than one that is unemployed and drawing down on his CPF savings. When one is eligible to withdraw the CPF savings, that should be the age for those who are still economically active to be spared the burden of contributing to Medisave. Their incomes are more valuable when they are young, (not counting wasteful inflation) than when they are no longer physically able.
Savings for Medisave after the CPF withdrawal age must be voluntary. After 55/62, CPF or Medisave contribution must no longer be compulsory but voluntary. Otherwise it is like extorting the old folks, to withhold their money to fatten the nation’s reserves, and which they are unlikely to use them. It is another way of robbing them to pay the hospitals, against their wish when they are mentally unable to decide for themselves.
After certain age, the people must have the right to decide if they want to waste their money to pay the expensive hospital bills. Maybe some are hoping that once the oldies hit dementia, unsound mind, let other people decide on how to spend their huge savings in the Medisave.
It is time the govt review the CPF/Medisave Contributions for the old folks. Stop bullying them and taking their money against their wills.
Financial crisis hitting stock markets
MAS is getting more clouts to deal with errant pushers of toxic products. This sounds like a good thing. What MAS needs to do is to be more proactive and look at the whole financial system as well, especially how stock markets are run around the world, and how dangerous products and systems are allowed to get into the stock market system to run riots and exploited the weaknesses of the system to prey on the small investors.
The exploding financial crisis in the US and Europe is affecting not only toxic products but also the stock market mechanism and processes. The plunge in Dow and Europe market had caused panic and the immediate response by the European govts is to curtail short selling. The damage that short selling could cause, and how this mechanism can be easily abused need no further explanation.
Short selling and many other new devices and systems have been introduced into the stock markets world wide, including high speed trading, derivatives, dark pools, programme tradings, etc that violate the principles of stock trading. The very basis for funds to employ these new gadgetry and systems works against how a stock market should behave. In the long run they will devour everything and lead to a loss of confidence in stock trading and even the destruction of this industry.
They also violated the sacred principles of level playing field and transparency. If stock markets allowed such principles to be transgressed with impunity and explaining them to be part and parcel of modern stock trading, there is a very high possibility that the stock markets would go the way of toxic notes and bonds. They could inflict more severe damages and consequences than just toxic products. The industry could collapse and many people, other than losing their investments, could also lose their jobs.
Eventually the blame will fall back to authority/regulators for allowing all the infringements of good market practices, principles and rules and regulations to be breached and not doing anything to prevent them. When it became another crisis like the minibonds, it will be disastrous and the authority cannot run away from this responsibility by claiming investors went in with eyes wide open. The authority has the responsibility to provide a fair system and level playing field. That is the basic principle and also the rationale for the existence of a regulatory body. The people trust that the stock market are there to provide a level playing field and MAS is there to see to it. Caveat emptor is not acceptable when a system is allowed to operate with unfair advantages to the big funds.
If ever the stock market collapses, someone will have to answer for it. The key questions will be whether there is a level playing field and whether the new trading platform provided the funds with an unfair advantage over the small investors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)